Does your online Gallery reflect you?

[don_e]

I think some images in the No Words folder still have titles. Some of the titles refer to no longer existing folders, where they might have appeared if they weren't in the collection of No Words posts. For a while I used informational titles like where and when.

 

I don't get the point of titling "creatively" so to speak (I don't know what to call it). It seems a step on the well trod path to pictorialism. Would it make any difference if I titled a landscape "Tranquility" rather than Landscape Number 07 or no title at all?

 

My feeling is that confronting the viewer with explanatory text is an attempt to influence viewers to see a photo (or any visual art) in the way the artist would like them to see it, rather than letting them discover it for themselves or not.

 

It's becoming quite common and, aside from neo-pictorialism, it may reflect the conceptual dominance of commercial photography, especially advertising, but also propaganda. Photographers who want to control the viewers' perceptions, create or organize their emotional responses, have impact, stand out from the mass of other photos, stop the page-turners, making it pop, wow the viewer...are talking the language of art directors and account managers. I have no issues with photographers in those fields doing so, or those who are working their way into such a career. There's no reason for amateurs like myself to do that unless they just plain want to which I don't, not even expressive creative titling.

 

I'm not into toggling eyeballs with my photography. I do that to earn my living in another profession.

[Norma Desmond]

Kirk--

 

I'll give it a shot from my perspective.

 

There are various senses in which photographs might reflect the photographer.

 

1. The subject matter might reflect the interests of the photographer.

 

2. The chosen style might reflect a manner in which the photographer approaches the

world. At very least, it suggests a manner in which the photographer approaches

photography, which tells the viewer something.

 

3. The body of work might show an emotional pattern true to the photographer's

personality. It might also lie.

 

4. Most newbies feel the need to be literal and, at least once, photograph themselves in a

mirror.

 

The only self portrait I ever did, most people including me think is rather flattering. I think

most who met me only after viewing the photo would be surprised. I don't think I look as

good in real life as in the photo. In one sense of reflection, it does not reflect me.

However, emotionally it does. That was my intention. Most of what people read into it is

there, although clearly some is not. At the time, I did feel secure, almost as if in the womb.

There was warmth, comfort, which people seem to feel is expressed in the shot.

Interestingly, just the fact that I flattered myself visually reflects something about me on a

whole other level.

 

I understand what Don is saying and there's no reason to question his approach. What I

will say is that I have read much of what both Don and John K. have to say in these forums.

Of course, they could be pretending and lying about their thoughts and beliefs. That aside,

though, their writings say something about who they are, even though for the most part

they refrain from being emotional and lean toward a straightforward style of

communicating. I was not surprised to see that reflected in both their portfolios. This

phenomenon could be a reflection. It could also be a projection. Likely, it is somewhere

between the two.

 

I think photographs reflect "significance." Significance doesn't translate one-to-one from

the emotions or personality of the photographer straight through to the viewer. What is

significant to the viewer about a photograph is what reaches us, whether it be

representative, documentary, emotional, spiritual. The photographer has captured light on

a corporeal substance. That in itself makes the product -- or at least part of the process

-- of the photographer to an extent

intangible (a secondary definition of intangible: existing only in connection with

something else). Somewhere in the combination of what the photographer did, what the

world was like at the time the photographer did it, and what the viewer's experience

currently is, is what is essential about the photograph.

 

Example of significance: I am depressed when I take a photo. My sadness is informing my

approach to the subject. I am allowing that to happen. The viewer may as well see

something angry or lonely or even joyful in my photo. What is significant is the

communication of human emotion in these cases, not the specific emotion. The ability to

channel emotion and then evoke emotion is one feature of some artists.

 

To me, whether one can avoid reflecting themselves in anything they do is as much a

psychological as an esthetic question.

[kristina_kraft]

Fred, you said interesting things. I'll just comment the fourth approach. In my opinion, every photographer likes to take a photo of himself/herself. It's a part of the whole photo process. Photographer doesn't have to be a newbie. From my point of view, I photographed myself because I have a lot of interaction with people and I was interested of how would I appear to myself. So, there are a social reasons. And of course, I'm changing, so there are a physiological and psychological reasons. It is a study of the body, on the other side and technical handling exercise, too.

The significance: To capture the sensuality and feelings that I was hiding. To capture the glimpse of the real passion for life.

When I photograph other people, I'm trying to find that passion for life in them! That glimpse!

[kirk d]

Thanks for the thoughtful answers Fred and Don.

 

Don - I respect your approach to titling and am often torn between doing so or not, I usually do although I shouldn't because most of my titles suck. Most of the time, I do it for the fun and other times to communicate to the viewer. I don't know if that is "right" or "wrong". Its odd though, some images I title, I feel very comfortable doing so, others, I feel a uncertainty or reluctance.

 

Fred - I wasn't necessarily questioning Don's approach, not sure if you were saying I was or were just stating there's no reason to question his approach as a general statement. But, for the record, I did not intend to question it, if anything, I was defending what I thought Don was questioning about my interpretation of the post.

 

As for approach, I'm not sure that I have a concious one but in reading your reply Fred, I see photography in many of the ways you stated.

 

Thanks again,

Kirk

[don_e]

"I think photographs reflect "significance.""

 

 

Okay. There we go agreeing 8-) The significance is captured in the emotional or aesthetic response to "light on a corporeal substance" -- this one, not that one, and now, not then -- that I to respond by photographing it. Subtle or straightforward, it has drawn something from me to it, and since this is photography, I draw something from it to me by making an exposure. The process to make a photograph out of it is intended to communicate the emotional or aesthetic urgency that called forth the act of photography.

 

Kirk, one reason I photograph desert sunsets is in response to the moment of stillness that almost always occurs then. Everything is transformed at that moment. The wind dies down and it is as silent as silence can be. Tranquil it may be, but it is also ominous and alien.

So far, the opportunity hasn't come to capture it all in a photograph.

[Norma Desmond]

Kirk-- I didn't think you were questioning Don's approach. Mine was a general statement. I

understand the ambiguity you felt.

 

Kristina-- Regarding newbies, I was specifically referring to photographing oneself in a

mirror, not all self portraiture. Use of a mirror for such purposes is often trite and

otherwise uncreative, the mirror seeming to be the substitute for actually delving below

the surface and coming up with nuanced perspectives with which to see oneself. That is

also not always the case, by any means. Photographing oneself in a mirror is as much a

draw, often early on, as is photographing one's own shadow, also likely to result in fairly

typical and uninteresting images. Self portraits, as you say, will always be vital. I love

seeing them and loved doing the one I did and plan to do more.

[kirk d]

Thanks, no problem Fred.

 

Don, maybe you need to reflect more of yourself and not just the subject. Sounds like what you think is missing is the ominous/alien "feel" you get. Now how are we going to get that reflected from your subject if you don't reflect your feeling of that into it? Just kidding. I think the larger the image you can print, the closer you'll come to having that image reflect that feeling. Sometimes big is better, which, I think you have referred to several times.

 

Kirk

[don_e]

"Sometimes big is better, which, I think you have referred to several times."

 

Not me. John Kelly, perhaps.

[Norma Desmond]

Definitely John Kelly. That ol' size queen :)

[kirk d]

Sorry bout the mistaken identity, Don.

[jtk]

"...one reason I photograph desert sunsets is in response to the moment of stillness that almost always occurs then. Everything is transformed at that moment. The wind dies down and it is as silent as silence can be. Tranquil it may be, but it is also ominous and alien. So far, the opportunity hasn't come to capture it all in a photograph." Don E.

 

Some of us can write. Very fine.

[don_e]

Thanks, John. I know you've been there, too.

 

Kirk, larger prints aren't a good option currently. I prefer handheld and to use cameras I enjoy shooting rather than others just for better resolution. This will change because my wife recently inherited her grandfather's Anniversary Speed Graphic, the full wood-boxed kit (He owned a photography studio). I'm looking forward to using it.

[kirk d]

Larger prints require larger bucks too. You'll be impressed at some of your own stuff when you do get to do it. I've yet to do any of mine larger than 8x10 but a friend of mine does some big ones and its amazing how much better some of his stuff looks compared to the same image at 5x7 or 8x10.

That Speed Graphic sounds interesting whatever it is - I'll have to "Google" it.

[Allen Herbert]

My feeling is that confronting the viewer with explanatory text is an attempt to influence viewers to see a photo (or any visual art) in the way the artist would like them to see it, rather than letting them discover it for themselves or not.

 

Sometimes you have to give folks a nudge in the right direction. Photography to most folk is about sunsets,landscapes,family and friends...that's the deal.

 

A few words,hopefully, might help to open a few gummed up eyes. Sadly,among the more understanding,the concern would be what cam you used,what f stop,what proccess used,and have you achieved photo copier perfect reproduction.

 

Welcome to the real world of photography.

[kristina_kraft]

Fred, I would like to see one of your self-portraits.

Yes, I also enjoy photographing myself!

[jtk]

:-) Online reflections (browse names): http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.urscorpseattle.com/airportsecurity/images/steve_swinehart.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.urscorpseattle.com/airportsecurity/About_URS.htm&h=191&w=140&sz=9&hl=en&start=3&sig2=co7sMqXfMqBlCeRiCLEJBg&um=1&tbnid=euA7jKEAcZqQ9M:&tbnh=103&tbnw=75&ei=wNtOR6HIDqiyjAHYtY2KCQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsteve%2Bswinehart%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

[Norma Desmond]

Krstina--

<p><p>

You can view my one and only self portrait <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=5510480">HERE</a>.

[jtk]

I share Kirk's discomfort with photographers' chatter about their work...especially when they assert that it's "art." (I also tend to balk at the words of people who write about their "spiritual" insights).

 

Many photographers are borderline illiterate ...yet they rattle on , as if they have produced art and as if their writing relates honestly to what they've hung.

 

Sadly "photo teachers" often say a photo conveys its worth immediately, with no context, to people with limited attention spans: like love at first sight by adolescents.

 

Few scenic or street snaps, printed by prosumer labs or photo students or posted on Photo.net, are worth 1000 words.

 

However, when the photograph refers to something that is of itself significant (your child, your experience with violence, your experience with a mountain pass), writing can become an extension of the photograph (or vice-versa). The photograph and words can join as an experience. The words can take away from the photograph, just as they can contribute to it. There's plenty of justification for writing about a mediocre image, but I think there's little justification for generic "art" blather in the context of one's photos, no matter the excellence.

[kristina_kraft]

Fred, thank you!

It is a lovely self-portrait. Very sensual, having a playful look.

[Norma Desmond]

Glad it works for you, Kristina :)

 

I agree with John and Kirk to a great extent. For some reason, people tend to think artists

are the best ones to speak about their own work. NOT. John's point about writing being an

extension in some cases makes great sense. More often, it's distracting.

 

I also generally find titles, especially the ones I've seen on PN, annoying. Did you catch the

recent "casual" thread where a guy submitted a photo of a homeless-looking man sitting

on a concrete slab writing on some unknown piece of paper. He titled it "Writing to God"

and was shocked when no one in the thread saw what was in the title in the photo itself.

It's as if, by osmosis, the character of the photo is supposed to be imbued with that of the

title.

 

I do make a PN exception in terms of writing about my work. This is a learning

environment, to a great extent, or at least I try to use it that way. The ways in which I

share ideas about my own work and the work of others is not necessarily how I would do it

in a different environment. There are some questions I simply refuse to or cannot answer,

but I think I do tend to try and answer more questions and discuss more issues about

which I

would really prefer to keep my mouth shut.

[don_e]

Does anyone know of a photographer (so we can share, a known one) who has written extensively and well about their photographs?

[kirk d]

Fred, good point about this environment on PN being a learning one and I'd like to add that a lot of conversation also stems from the other environment I think PN fosters and that is the friendly one.

 

Often I write stuff about my image in the comment box when putting it up for comment/rate and almost always in the comments section after someone has commented. In doing so I usually feel like I'm communicating with and in a way that I would were you my friend sitting in my physical presence and having a conversation about your photo or mine. I don't know about you all, but when I'm with a photog friend or even a friend with interest in my pictures, we usually talk about how we obtained the image and other stuff because they "know" you already and don't have to stare at your picture and figure that part out.

 

Now, with strangers its probably best to let them observe, absorb and enjoy your image on their own terms. I guess that is what makes PN a little difficult to draw the line with the titling subject because while many people are friends and casual, its unavoidable that strangers will look at your stuff; hell, even your friends here were at one point strangers.

 

If your stuff ever makes it in a gallery, I'd say cut the fat. Here, I think its much less important. Actually as a learning environment as Fred mentioned, I wish some photographers would put a little more information than they do. There are many that have to large of egos and mightier than thou complex that they are above sharing or just don't care.

 

Kirk

 

Kirk

[jtk]

Don, Weston's been a touchstone for me since the Sixties, when I somehow managed to pay for Daybook II, hardbound, then new. I don't claim the Daybooks display fine writing. He doesn't craft brilliant descriptions of images, he doesn't propose "meanings," but he does sensitively convey his relationship to the whole of his photography beautifully.

 

Unlike most photographers today, he never blows smoke. He's honest, and not just because he's writing for himself. That's probably now quite what you were looking for :-)

[cyanatic]

The simple answer is, yes, my online gallery reflects me. How much it reflects, and exactly what it reflects, are other matters altogether. In reading the various responses, it often seems that discussions like this one end up revolving around a definition of terms. In this case, whether or not one thinks their gallery (or absence of a gallery) reflects them depends on how they view (define) "reflection".

 

A.) "My gallery does not reflect me because 'reflection' = X, and my gallery/photographs do not meet the criteria for X."

 

B.) "My gallery reflects me because 'reflection' = Y, and my gallery/photographs meet the criteria for Y."

 

I subscribe to B. How could my gallery not be a reflection of me? As someone has already stated, a gallery, or absence of gallery, is a reflection of someone whether they think it is or not. Seems pretty elementary to me.

 

Time is also a valid consideration. Had I been a member of PN 16 months ago, my gallery would have been chock full of HDR photographs. In 6 or 12 months, my gallery may look very different from how it currently looks.

 

The photos I choose to put in my gallery are not intended to create a reflection of who I am. I did not go through a thought process of, "Well, if I put in this, this, and this, then anyone looking at the gallery will see me as being ________. " So, no, I'm not consciously trying to mold a viewer's impression of me or my photographs. I would probably be more selective, and cull out certain things if I was trying to do that.

 

I haven't really developed any cohesive "artistic statement". My photographic tastes (both in terms of what I like to look at, and what I like to photograph) run to that which has subtle, or not so subtle, juxtapositions; a hint of darkness (mood or theme as opposed to lighting, though that enters into as well); the slightly surreal in the everyday; as little manipulation and post-processing as possible. I find that that which is a bit odd, or perhaps that which is somewhat dark or lonely, to be joyful and liberating in a way. Hard to explain, exactly. What comes to mind for some reason, is Yasuhiro Ishimoto's photograph of the loose newspaper pages aloft on the wind outside the steps of the Chicago Art Institute. I find it odd, surreal, lonely yet connected, and it gives me a feeling of joy and exhiliration. I don't intentionally aim for such an effect with all my photographs, but if I manage to capture something that, for me, comes within shouting distance of such a sensation.

 

Hmm...I generated a lot of words for such a simple question.

[cyanatic]

Oops. That will teach me to proofread more carefully before I post...never completed the sentence: "...comes within shouting distance of such a sensation, I would likely include it in my online gallery."