WHERE IS THE BACK STORY

[mike dixon]

<i>Now, is there anyone of you who can say that these clues are not enough for the spectator to make him think and put himself in the processing of analysing these photos, finding a part of himself or herself inside them and so on ? . . . So why do we not accept clues and messages from photos and why don't we pay a minimum attention to them ? I shall tell you: Because that's the way we are living our life, we are closed inside our castles, we love our chains, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT OTHERS!! and that's the world we have made : pure egoistic and therefore self-destructive.. </i><P>

There's a certain irony here. First, you present the idea that people should interpret your photos in the way you intend because you've given them sufficient clues to understand <i>your</i> meaning. But then you complain about the egoistic nature of viewers who don't interpret images in the way the photographer intends. In my view, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black; if you put your ego ahead of that of your viewers, you are at least as guilty as they are of the faults you say they suffer.

[marleft]

O.K. Mike, perhaps you are right, but please first see these photos and then tell me if you insist on your idea about me. What ever you say I will accept it, because I respect your opinion, which has been expressed in a very logical way. And something else. I did not say that the spectator has to understand MY meaning, but " to find a part of himself inside these photos". Clues, you know are not for being understood. These are obvious even for a child. Clues are just to keep spectator inside the basic theme of the artwork and don't let him speak about deep night while it is obvious that it is day light! (metaphorically speaking of course).

[marleft]

A word for Justin Black

 

My friend, thank you for backing me, especially at the start of this discussion, against these two "bunk" fellows. I have no hard feelings about them. This is their way of speaking and communicating. I respect it. I only hope that they will take advantage of this discussion to understand some major things in life and restore their arrogant behaviour to the others..

[al_kaplan1]

Shouldn't "art" have, at least to some extent, a universal meaning? Sure, some people "won't get it" but you might find others who think it's the greatest. Tastes vary. Critics, gallery owners, museum curators all have their own hangups. A good photo shouldn't need a back story, although often there's a synergy between the image and the written word. When somebody likes one of your prints well enough to get out their checkbook that should be enough validation. If you're the only one who likes one of your photographs so what? Enjoy it.

[marleft]

Can you mention Al a "good" photo, which has no back stoty? An historic photo who everybody remembers. And I mean everybody, not only the critics and the photographers. Can you? You can't, because a good photo, is the one which gives us the reality behind the image. It is the one which gives us a treasure of memories, a piece of history (ask war photo reporters, or remember the photo of American flag and the soldiers setting it during world war II, or the photo of the kiss of victory given by a soldier to an unknown girl in N.Y. at the end of the war), a touch of immortality, a hope in our life, a solution to our problems. This is a photo to remember, this a good photo for me..All the others are excellent photos in terms of aesthetics and originality and that's all. Nobody remembers them after a month, a year or ten years if you want. Thanks Al. Take care.

[ric_johnson1]

As Diane Arbus once said, "A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know."

[alan_b.arglebargle]

I'm thinking of a pepper.

 

Marios Lefteriotis asked:

 

"Can you mention Al a "good" photo, which has no back stoty? An historic photo who everybody remembers. And I mean everybody, not only the critics and the photographers. Can you? You can't, because a good photo, is the one which gives us the reality behind the image. It is the one which gives us a treasure of memories, a piece of history (ask war photo reporters, or remember the photo of American flag and the soldiers setting it during world war II, or the photo of the kiss of victory given by a soldier to an unknown girl in N.Y. at the end of the war), a touch of immortality, a hope in our life, a solution to our problems. This is a photo to remember, this a good photo for me..All the others are excellent photos in terms of aesthetics and originality and that's all. Nobody remembers them after a month, a year or ten years if you want. Thanks Al. Take care."

[nicolerenee]

oi.

 

Marios, I've seen photographs and pieces of art that blew my mind, I could sit and stare at them for hours not caring a pinch for what they "said" or who made them or what the artist intended. I couldnt tell you their names or sometimes even where I saw them but they are still there in the back of my mind and I carry them around with me. That being said, I've also seen and heard art that took my breath away and then, after learning more about the person that created it, my appreciation deepened into wonder. I can do with or without both. Visceral emotional response and intelectual response both, seperately or together, are just fine with me. I dont need both at the same time to appreciate.

I remember the first time I saw the Pieta, by Michelangelo. It feels the same every time I look at it, and I still know next to nothing about the man. Good thing I know a little about the subject :) but I wonder, would my response be the same had I known nothing of the Saviors life?

[marleft]

Nicole you said :" I've seen photographs and pieces of art that blew my mind, I could sit and stare at them for hours not caring a pinch for what they "said" or who made them or what the artist intended. I couldnt tell you their names or sometimes even where I saw them but they are still there in the back of my mind and I carry them around with me."

I should like to know WHY these photos blew your mind. So please remember one of these, the best, describe it in details and let us find together the reasons which made your mind blow. I am sure that they will not be the beautiful colours, or shapes or anything else related to aesthetics and originality, but something that touched your unconcious mind. A back story very well hidden there, that was motivated by this picture. Do you want us to make this experiment? Let's go, I'm waiting..

[marleft]

Alan and Al

 

(pepper talking)

 

take one of these "gorgeous" pepper photos, the best, and put it side by side with this famous portrait of Vietnamese little girl, which stopped the Vietnam war and tell me if you continue to insist in this pepper talking..Take care my friends

[alan_b.arglebargle]

I know which one I'd hang on my wall and which one would give me nightmares. One is about beauty, the other makes me feel ashamed to be human. Beauty is what makes life worth living. Recognizing the beautiful is one of the greatest gifts we have that makes us different than the other animals, if you believe in that sort of thing. That pepper is all about finding beauty in the everyday and mundane. You can find beauty in your very own kitchen, you don't even have to hike out into nature to find it. I'm not saying your opinion is invalid, I'm just saying that it's like, your opinion, man. Both photographs gave me an immediate emotional reaction the first time I ever saw them. I never even considered the photo of Kim Phuc to be art, but incredibly powerful photojournalism.

[nicolerenee]

a couple of things.

 

Two particular paintings come to mind and one photo, and one I do know the name of although I know nothing of the artists or their lives.

 

1. Girl with a Peal earing, by Jan Vermeer.

2. A painting of two little girls in white dresses lighting white paper lanterns in the twilight surrounded by white lilies.

3. A mother with two children leaning on her during the depression.

 

These aside from the Pieta which I could look at always and several georgia okeefe paintings i dont know the name of. I dont know if any of these could be considered "the best." All of these strike me for different reasons.

[marleft]

1. Alan B.arglebargle

 

"I never even considered the photo of Kim Phuc to be art, but incredibly powerful photojournalism"

 

We come again Alan to the main point of this discussion: What is Art. I already have said my personal opinion. For me Art is everything which is useful for our soul and helps us understand this world we are living in and especially what the nature of human being is..So LIFE is ART for me. And I agree with you that beauty in our kitchen is Art ("Beauty is what makes life worth living" I absolutely agree with you) as well as every little detail in our life. The question is what hits us. And this is strictly personal I suppose. In that way, for me, photojournalism can be art. I don't reject these pepper photos as an Art Work, but I believe that this little girl's photo, gave a deep meaning in our life because it changed, at a certain moment, the route of history. That for me makes this photo an Art masterpiece because it changed our life to the better. Anyway Alan I don't disagree with you in anyway because I realize that we both believe in some major values of life, perhaps in a different way..

 

Take care

 

2. Nicole York

 

"All of these strike me for different reasons".

 

Just one point my friend Nicole. Do these reasons extend beyond aesthetics and originality? and if yes try to dig out and find the initial roots (you know memories, experiences and so on) and we shall go on with it tomorrow.

[maris_rusis]

A photograph without "back story", however minimal, is merely eye candy. The back story is a hint to the viewer as to what mental machinery to invoke to appreciate the photograph and the photographers intentions.

 

Without back story it is possible to appreciate a photograph but the mental hum generated is just the noise of the viewers own wheels turning. The viewing experience does not extend beyond what the viewer brought with them in their head.

 

Another photo viewing experience without back story is that of pareidolia (or para eidolia); seeing what is not there. Cloud shapes become animals, a half burnt taco bears a portrait of the Virgin Mary, a ripple in a lake is the Loch Ness Monster. Back story is immunisation against delusion.

 

Looking without thinking, just looking, is a harmless alternative. The photo to the brain becomes as chewing gum to the teeth; engages but does not nourish.

[jacob_brown]

<i> The fact that photographs ? they're mute, they don't have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don't know what's happening, you don't know whether the hat's being held or is it being put on her head or taken off her head. From the photograph, you don't know that. A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening. <p>

 

I think that there isn't a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability. Any of 'em. They do not tell stories - they show you what something looks like. To a camera. The minute you relate this thing to what was photographed ? it's a lie. It's two-dimensional. It's the illusion of literal description. The thing has to be complete in the frame, whether you have the narrative information or not. It has to be complete in the frame. It's a picture problem. It's part of what makes things interesting. </i> <p>

 

----- Gary Winogrand

[marleft]

1. Maris Rusis

 

"A photograph without "back story", however minimal, is merely eye candy"

 

I like that Maris! Tell us more..

 

2. Jacob Brown

 

Welcome back Jacob my friend (I mean it). You are a passionate fellow and I like it! And now to our subject.

 

" The fact that photographs ? they're mute, they don't have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don't know what's happening, you don't know whether the hat's being held or is it being put on her head or taken off her head. From the photograph, you don't know that. A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening."

 

You are mostly right. A photo can not describe what is happening. But it can describe what HAS HAPPENED, and there we can find a part of ourself. For example, we see a photo of a man hunged with a rope in a room and a letter close to him. We can assume that this man has commited suicide. Then we see details upon him and the enviroment and perhaps we can assume a story about him and the reasons which made him kill himself and so on. Besides this is the way police detectives are investigating these kind of things. So by a photo we can tell a story which has happened and there we can find parts of ourselves. The problem is elsewere: We need more data in order to make it in the best way. So we start making changes on photos. We give more light at the foreground and we darken backround in order to focus attention on a certain part of the synthesis, we make changes to colours, shapes, cropping them and so on and finally we imitate movies by taken two or more photos, surimposing them and making a new image which combines many frosen moments, in order to give a certain impression and motivate viewers to the direction we want. Now for me the big question is this (and this is my next chalenge to this forum): Are these PS workouts, photos ? (including mine of course). And what is a photo? Is axactly what camera captures the moment of shooting? And if yes, what all the rest are? Because I think that the vast majority of photos published at this site, have been restored the one or the other way.

 

Regards, take care (ask Ellis Vener to join us as well)

 

Marios

[Norma Desmond]

Marios, even a suicide is not so cut and dry (in my opinion). Not only the photograph of

the suicide but the suicide itself has been motivated in a certain way. If my own father,

let's say (which is not the case) had committed suicide I would likely shoot another suicide

differently

than someone who might, him/herself be considering suicide. I believe we put an

individual perspective (a spin, as it were) onto what we shoot and there is no such thing as

some objective

reality that we capture. For me, the notion of "reality" or "truth" that a photographer who

doesn't manipulate images (which, in my opinion again, is impossible, since I manipulate

from the time I pick up the camera) supposedly captures is a myth. It's like God. We seem

to have the need to believe that there is something certain, something unchanging,

unalterable, that is beyond man/woman's own ability to create and perceive. Well, I prefer

to think that we humans have all we need and all we're gonna get. And that includes one

of the most important terms a photographer or anyone else is going to learn . . .

perspective. This is what we bring to any experience, situation, photograph. "Reality," as

often used in the history of philosophy and certainly by many who post on these forums

about the "purity" of photography or even just the desire for a photograph to be

"unmanipulated," I think, is an anachronism. Just as is the notion that there is ANY

conveyable objective reality

beyond the reach of my perspective. What I convey through a photograph filters first

through my perspective and then through yours. The "reality" has long been left in the

dust. I

think the way "truth" and "reality" are often tossed

around these days is still because a lot of western thinkers are caught up in Descartes's

dualism of mind and body only, in some sense coming at it from the opposite direction.

Where Descartes elevated the mind's role over the body (body, of course, including the

entire "physical" world), the notions of "reality" often expressed somehow tend to elevate

the physical over the mental. So that "reality" (as opposed to human mind or perception or

perspective) becomes a fixed and reliable and eternal concept that is capable of being

represented by mere mortals. It is hard to think that there is no distinction because we

have been so programmed to think in terms of our bodies housing our minds and souls.

When we realize it's all one, we will start asking different questions in a different manner.

Until then, we will keep spinning our wheels in disagreement. The arguments about

representation of reality often remind me of the arguments about the existence of God.

They get passionate, divisive, and each side really can't understand what the other side is

grasping at. Part of the problem is that we don't yet really have a vocabulary that

adequately communicates

where philosophical thinking (whether metapysical or esthetic) is these days, and so we

still argue with history-laden terms that put us right back into those dualisms we should

have gone beyond by now.

[marleft]

Very deep thinking Fred. May I add a word about reality? What is reality? We say that reality is what really exists, and we assume that we are living reality in our everyday life, so we can understand and describe it. But this is totally wrong, because we are living in the past and therefore we can not touch reality. J.Krishnamurti all his life was teaching this, and he was wright. So if Art can reveal to us the "real" reality, then it can change our life. That's why we say that Art goes ahead of our time, because it can represent to us, this which we are going to understand tomorrow. So, because I think that this is very serious for our life, I started my text, in the beginning of this discussion, with the definition that "Art is the representation or the reconstruction of reality", but unfortunately it was misunderstood and caused a series of serious controvercies.. You see I had not thought of this problem of insufficient vocabulary, as it was, so well, said by you..

 

Regards

 

Marios

[marleft]

To Fred Goldsmith

 

Fred, you gave my ideas on photo backstories in a very practical and well understood way. You will allow me to present your reaction to a photo of my portofolio (it would be the same with photos of any other portofolio), as well as my answer to you, because this "happening" explains in a very practical way, what a photo backstoty is.

 

Fred Goldsmith

 

"Marios, since I enjoyed reading your philosophical musings in the forum on "back stories," I thought I'd come experience your photos. This one stood out to me. At first glance, of course, the interesting and unique design caught my eye. What a construction! Then, of course, I choose to take it one step further and see that you have thoughtfully placed a gesturing human subject in the midst of man's structure. And then I go without to the natural blue sky. Suddenly I am struck by nature, man, and man's creations. A thoughtful and visual photograph, the best kind. --Fred"

 

Marios Lefteriotis

 

"Fred, thank you because you got my idea of photos backstories, which I want to convey to everybody interested in. You made a slight effort and you discovered these beautiful things which are a part of yourself now. That's what I am trying to convey in philosophical forum, under the title "WHERE IS THE BACKSTORY".

[Norma Desmond]

Marios, I would add that this statement of mine is my own construction, which I often do

when providing a critique. It is meant to convey some of the chords that are struck within

me so the photographer has a hint of what I am seeing. It may be that different chords will

sound for me tomorrow when I look at it, and that different or no chords will be heard by

others when looking at it. When I look at a Mondrian painting, I don't react in the same

way. For that matter, when I look at the Mona Lisa I don't either. Some photos hit me on a

much more "gut" level to which I don't react literally. All that is said keeping in mind that I

do better understand what you are saying now that we have had a few back and forths (the

sign of a good dialogue). I'm thinking that your notion of reality is not as fixed as I may

originally have interpreted it. I'm also aware that, often, the back stories or emotional

findings people comment on regarding my own photos are neither intended by me nor

have

even been thought of by me. Nevertheless I take pleasure in knowing that I have

stimulated ANY reaction, even strongly negative, in someone. None of this makes the

reaction or "back story" any less genuine for the person

reacting, but it does bring back into play the important concept of "perspective,"

something through which we all see and interpret. My particular perspective and what I

strive for (whether successfully or not) is "creation" rather than "reconstruction." For me,

the best works of art create a new "reality" rather than imitating or reconstructing a tired

old one. That may be why you provide an almost spiritual definition (over the course of

your many statements here) of art, which is naturally going to rile those--me among them

to an extent--who recognize that, over the years, many artists have tried to bring art

down off its high horse. Lastly, the matter did get a bit complicated by talking both of

the philosophical nature of art and the more mundane task of understanding the critiquing

methods or lack thereof on this web site. Clearly, they are two different topics, both

worthy of quite separate treatments.

[marleft]

Fred, you have touched so many important aspects of Art, Photography and Life, that we could speak for days in order to exchange thoughts and analyze them. Let me isolate some strong phrases out of your text for sake of our friends who may want to join us.

 

"It may be that different chords will sound for me tomorrow when I look at it, and that different or no chords will be heard by others when looking at it"

 

"I do better understand what you are saying now that we have had a few back and forths (the sign of a good dialogue)"

 

"the back stories or emotional findings people comment on regarding my own photos are neither intended by me nor have even been thought of by me"

 

"I have stimulated ANY reaction, even strongly negative, in someone"

 

"spiritual definition (...) of art"

 

"create a new "reality" rather than imitating or reconstructing a tired old one"

 

"over the years, many artists have tried to bring art down off its high horse"

 

"understanding the critiquing methods or lack thereof on this web site. Clearly, they are two different topics, both worthy of quite separate treatments"

 

Of all these the one that hits me best, is (in my own words): "stimulating reactions, positive or negative, occasionally beyond the intentions of the artist!!". I like that because it shows that the viewer of a photo, when reacting like this, in good faith of course, is ALIVE and FREE and is living his or her life in FULLNESS.

 

Alive, Free, and Fullness of Life, being words and expressions not to be explained and understood by dictionaries, but by a long, strictly personal effort, during our presence in this world..

[soltani]

I read nearly the whole thread and well it took some time and I have my response:<br><i>Oh! god I am scared, I'd be better off writing this in my notebook and imagining that you all praised me! I feel your guns pointed at me, you people full of knowledge and words and me helpless without the slightest idea of what to say that might make all agree and praise, and oh what am I saying? at best I could hope not to be shot, ..... but hell! wait! there ain't no guns, I am sitting in my dorm room in front of my laptop and I ain't even connected to the internet; so what am I so afraid of?<br>I'll tell you. I'm afraid of what you people might say and that you might pull your guns at my thoughts and blow my beliefs away; but come on that won't kill me, it's just my beliefs, I'd still be here healthy and all, so why all the fright? It is because I am my thoughts.</i>

Don't worry I ain't going to wright a book. First of all I'd like to point out that a photo of any genre is not what it shows; I mean to say that the photo of Mario is not Mario, it is paper with some chemicals over it; Get the point? The photo of the Vietnam war is not the Vietnam war, it is just paper and some ... So let us be clear that it is the observer that makes the relation between the photo and what it shows, and that the photo, in soul has no relation what so ever to what the observer thinks it shows. I think that was philosophical enough, unless you want me to pull Emanuel Kant out of his grave, to point it out.<br> Second. A photo when seen by the observer has no relation to reality, because the photo shows something of the past, and the past is not real. Now is the only reality. So what is real in the observation of a photo is the brain of the observer working to find a relation between the photo and the many bits and bytes of info and things in his/her memory. Our thoughts make images and store them in our memory, so does the camera except on paper.<br>

So what is it that makes a photo so special, so as to stop a war, make a protest, bring tears to my face, or for the least make me want to watch and watch and watch? Is it the back story? but is it not me that makes the back story? What about the pepper photos? there ain't no back stories to them, unless I make them; but I make all the back stories, even when there are clues (Don't forget who interprets the clues). So how does a photo touch me?<br> It brings out a series of images in our memories, it has the ability to suggest a relation between those images, and our thought has the ability to manipulate all this and make an idea, a new perspective to look from. It is still the past, but maybe it has helped me find something in my memory I hadn't paid attention to so far. That is it. There isn't even reality in my new thought, since it is the result of manipulating the past.<br>

This is why a photo may have the potentiality to stop a war, but never will any photo have the potential to stop war, because in order to stop war totally, and make peace and harmony, everyone of us has to stop this continuous action of manipulating the past and just look at war right now, look at ourselves right now. if we want to change the way the world goes, we have to look at now. Maybe that is why a photo brings food to Africa, but there goes AIDS attached to the food, because the human who observed the photo wasn't in relation to now, he was watching the photo and it reminded him/her of Macdonald's Big Mac , the hunger of an African child, the fact that he/she owes the poor child some of what god has given us all, and the disgusting story of our shameless need for a silent mind. So I am asking myself right now:<p>

Hey! Ali! why did you put all this energy into photos, or why should anyone put any energy into photography apart from its uses in identification and police work or ... ?<p>

For a minute there, I thought of giving up photography, but I finally caught it. I have made images of life too and of tranquility and peace of mind, of how one can live free and be aware at all times, and of myself. Maybe your photo will have the potential to relate all these memories together and bring out the contradiction I have always believed in: that there is a me, and there is my thought; Maybe I'll come to react to this contradiction and find out that <i>I am thought</i>, and then maybe I'll take my big part in stopping war and feeding the hungry; Just Maybe.

[marleft]

URGENT INVITATION TO

 

 

Marios Leftheriotis,

 

Ellis Vener,

 

Jacob Brown,

 

Matt Laur,

 

Justin Black,

 

Steve Dawson,

 

Steve Swinehart,

 

Dick Hilken,

 

Carl Root,

 

D.B. Cooper,

 

Mike Dixon,

 

Al Kaplan,

 

Ric Johnson,

 

RML.

 

Alan B.Arglebargle,

 

Nicole York,

 

Maris Rusis,

 

Fred Goldsmith

 

and everyone else who has not state his ideas and comments so far,

 

 

WE ARE IN DEEP WATERS AND NOW IT IS THE TIME FOR EVERYBODY TO SPEAK

about photography, about life, ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL ON THIS PLANET!!!

If there are solutions, let's find them N O W ! ! !

 

Ali has opened a channel. LET US EXPLORE IT ..

[jonathancharlesphoto]

Marios, you raised an obviously complex question - or questions, if you include the meaning of art and of reality. As to these things the discussion so far has been covered and considerably exceeded 250 years ago by Immanuel Kant - I can strongly recommend you read even a brief introduction to his work if you are not familiar with it. A very minimal summary is that reality only exists in the <u>combination</u> of sensation and understanding. Likewise the artistic power of a picture depends on a combination of the abstract properties of the 2-dimensional image and the emotional impact it has on the viewer, which may either be because of a perceived "back story" or a direct, probably subconscious, effect of the design which maybe resonates with an inner story.

<p>

The more immediate question of why don't people make more effort to look deeply into intentions behind photographs is, I think, a problem of too wide a choice of images, plus the fact that not much effort is put into most of the pictures by the photographers (eg "a nice shot of my cat / cute kid", "a pretty flower", "a sexy-looking model", "yet another sunset", "an old building I saw on my travels", "some random people walking in the street - in B&W, of course"). If the viewers could be assured that some serious thought had gone into the composition they <i>may</i> take the trouble to think about it. But it is quite unlikely unless the shot has some immediate appeal that grabs their attention.

<p>

Some people say that the image should tell its own story but if it isn't obvious there is no harm writing a few sentences to get them started.

<p>

I think we have to accept that most people are basically lazy and just looking for a quick fix of "eye candy" but there are also many potentially interested viewers who might miss some good work because of a lack of initial impact.

[marleft]

Jonathan welcome to our discussion

 

I agree with you and I invite you to stay with us and eventually visit at my portofolio the abstract photo "Metamorphosis" where this discussion continues in a different deeper level.<div></div>