The intrinsic and extrinsic matters of photographs

fate_faith_change_chains · January 27, 2009

"To what extent is the significance of a photograph not affected by matters extrinsic to the photograph? When I know things about the photographer, about his goals, about his milieu, his technique, the way he treats his wife, that may likely influence my experience of his photographs."

</blockquote>

I feel there's a nuance to make here and that's the one of creative intentionality or the lack of this creative intention in the making of the photograph or in the motivition of the photographer. The question seems to deal indirectly with what you would or would not recognize as something being made with the motivation of creative expression, and if being recognized as such, the possibility of understanding it to be a piece or work of art with significance.

If you feel something to be significant enough on an emotional level to experience it and know it to be as a piece of art then how is there any possible extent in wich the work ( in this case a photograph ) can or can not be affected by matters extrinsic to it such as the ones you state ? There isn't because these matters will always belong to the piece itself, be present with it and in it, per definition and by default almost of what it constitutes to be a work of art made by an artist.

Also, in response to Don's reaction to your question : I believe the artists work = the artists life or that what the artist wants us to know about it ( his goals, milieu, technique, the way he treats his wife,... ). How can Van Gogh's paintings not be about Van Gogh ? How can Lee Friedlanders body of work not be about Lee Friedlander, about his life ? How can Edward Weston's photographs not be about Edward Weston's life ?

Recognizing that there is any extent at all in wich the significance of a work is affected or not by matters extrinsic to it is recognizing it's unsignificance, per definition of the artist envisioning the work through his/her own life experiences. If it's not experienced as art, if there is no such significance to be found by the observer, then there's also no point wondering about the level or grade of the percieved lack of significance. Either way, the question for me, seems to dissolve itself.

Norma Desmond · January 27, 2009

Phylo-- What would you say to the distinction I made above about Picasso's influence on Rauschenberg, the difference between the way the influence itself (potentially unknown to the viewer) will have an effect on the viewer and the way the viewer's knowledge of that influence will have an effect?

I find a difference between what you speak of as the "matters [that] will always belong to the piece itself, be present with it and in it" and matters that belong more to us. The influence of Picasso is in the Rauschenberg, whether we know it or not and we are affected by that influence even though we may not know of it. But the way we are affected by the knowledge of the influence may be very different from the way we are affected by the influence. Our knowledge of the influence does not belong to the Rauschenberg, though the influence does. There seems to me more mediation from us, more of our own intentionality, in the knowledge than in the influence itself (which may remain unknown). The latter seems more intrinsic to the Rauschenberg and the former seems more dependent on matters and situations outside of it.

patrick j dempsey · January 27, 2009

Well, I guess my opinion is that it looks just like hundreds of fashion magazine photos I've seen over the years. Without knowing that we are SUPPOSED to view it as anything other than a strictly commercial piece of ad-art for black T-shirt and slacks by X designer, I don't get much more than that. So I guess what I'm saying is, how were we supposed to know that this is supposed to be a piece of "art" and not a commercial photo? The only thing that tells us that is the context of the photographer and possibly the subjects, although as I mentioned before, these kinds of parings are pretty common with fashion layouts. Is there a lot of great commercial art out there that could easily hang in galleries alongside "art" photography? Sure. Are alot of commercial artists getting more and more adventurous and taking risks that their "fine" art brothers aren't? Absolutely. Hey man, it's a topsy turvy world. But honestly, this photo doesn't even stand out to me as being a particularly interesting piece of commercial art, let alone a powerful piece of fine art. And yeah, that's my opinion... but it begs another question... when is a photo of a guy laying in bed with a naked chick just a photo of a guy laying in a bed with a naked chick, and when is it something more that we are supposed to obsess over and try to find symbolism and meaning in? If you saw this same basic image in a magazine with unknown models by a photographer you had never heard of, would you even stop for more than the time it took to find the caption for who made the black shirt, or is the cult of personality really the only driving factor in any interest in it at all? No offense intended to the artist... not every swing is a home-run you know.

Norma Desmond · January 27, 2009

Patrick-- I actually think "when is a photo of a guy laying in bed with a naked chick just a photo of a guy laying in a bed with a naked chick" would be a great way to start another thread. I kind of love that kind of matter of fact formulation of a question and think it would be a provocative discussion starter. I did start this thread hoping to stay away from specific judgments of taste on the examples I chose, though I do recognize it's hard to avoid in a discussion about photography, which is so much a matter of taste. Anyway, it's curious that you feel you are "supposed" to like something. I've always felt liking things (whether vanilla or chocolate or Monet or Pollock) was often a partially inexplicable choice. My giving reasons for what I like is just that, not an expectation that you will follow along and I assume the reverse is true for why you don't like what you don't like. I'll end this thought by telling you that I don't like tomatoes. And, with that, I can relate to your feeling as if you're supposed to like something. No matter who I tell that I prefer no tomatoes in my salad, I always get the feeling, if not the overt comment, that I'm doing something wrong.

fate_faith_change_chains · January 28, 2009

Phylo-- What would you say to the distinction I made above about Picasso's influence on Rauschenberg, the difference between the way the influence itself (potentially unknown to the viewer) will have an effect on the viewer and the way the viewer's knowledge of that influence will have an effect?

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

I would propose ( not claim ) that such a distinction is hypothetical, not present on the direct observational experience of the artwork as it is presented by the artist. Everything the artist had to offer to the painting is in the painting, that includes Picasso's influence, if indeed being influenced by him. That person A knows about this influence and person B does not, doesn't change the fact that either person sees the same painting in front of them. Their reaction to the painting is set by their own criteria, yes, this I acknowledge.

But person B can't remove himself from his own persona, his own ( lack of ) knowledge, and slip conveniently into the skin and mind of person A. It can not be done and still that's exactly what would be necessary for person B to measure the effect of persons A knowledge of the Picasso influence in the painting versus his own lack of knowledge of this influence, when he was still person B. And if person B becomes person A, then he is stuck again with persons A knowledge, and not being person B, not having this experience that person B had, a lack of knowledge of the influence, he can't reach, can't possibly begin to grasp, the effect, the difference between the two. Person A and B would have to melt to one person. But you can't simultaneously know one thing and not know that very one thing.

"They are somewhat inseparable but we can talk about them as such".

</blockquote>

First sentence of your original post Time and it's measuringdevices are somewhat inseparable, but we can talk about them as such, yes we can. But would it change anything of how we are always stuck, bound by our own perception, to the experiencing of time through the use of these measuringdevices ?

</blockquote>

Norma Desmond · January 28, 2009

Phylo-- Your premise that "everything the artist had to offer to the painting is in the painting" and that both people see the "same" painting before them seems to be exactly why I'm referring to certain qualities of the painting as intrinsic. I think measuring the distinction you're talking about is hypothetical. I don't think the distinction is. I don't think we need person A and person B. Person A is sufficient. I'm Person A. I see a photo. I react. I feel. I think. On my way out of the gallery, I learn about a key connection of that photo to something historical or some other photographer. I go back to look again. My experience of the photo is changed. The photo is not. Of course, for Heraclitus ("you can't step into the same river twice"), the photo would not be the same. For me it is. It will never feel as it used to and I likely will never think about it as I used to. No, I cannot measure the difference, cannot quantify it. Wouldn't want to. But I understand there is a qualitative difference now in my relationship to the photo. In order to understand this qualitative difference, I needn't divorce myself from myself and I needn't know one thing and not know the same thing. I need only remember my initial experience and compare it to the later one. I will be mindful that the second experience will be affected by other things besides my new knowledge. Viewing things a second time creates, in itself, a different experience. But, when this time, I am consciously noting the similarities to Photographer X, saying to myself, "Wow, I see a bit of Photographer X's influence now," I am aware that I have been affected by this new knowledge. This new knowledge is not in the painting, though it will now always inform my relationship to it. This knowledge is extrinsic.

fate_faith_change_chains · January 28, 2009

First let me say that both persons see the same painting by their own criteria, wich is slightly different than saying that both persons see the same

painting because it has supposed intrinsic qualities in it.

And while I understand what you're saying, I don't quite follow the conclusions you draw from it. I would say that your new knowledge is in the

painting ( as much as that what the artist had to offer is in it ) by the fact that you see it differently, just as much as your old

knowledge was in it, and in you. But you can never see it again in this old knowledge that lacked your new formed

knowledge, you would have to go back to your past self, and therefore you can't really compare between the two, the one who's comparing will always be the one with the new knowledge, the ' qualitative difference ' has been consumed by it. Why you would also call this knowledge extrinsic ( vs intrinsic ) is what

I don't follow, for this knowledge doesn't exist seperately from the painting, it needs the painting and it has become the

painting for you. Matters you view ' intrinsic ' to the painting are, IMO, the very same matters that you view ' extrinsic ' to

the painting. The observer is the observed.

Norma Desmond · January 28, 2009

The photo's being digital or film-based is a matter intrinsic to the photo. If I know something biographical about the photographer, it's knowledge I have. The first quality is intrinsic to the photo. The second is not. I don't think my new knowledge is "in the photo" in the same way that its being digital is in the photo.

fate_faith_change_chains · January 28, 2009

And yet you say they are somewhat inseparable... But I do understand your point.

fate_faith_change_chains · January 29, 2009

By the way Fred, have you read The Nature of Photographs by Stephen Shore ? I'm browsing through it right now and it seems to deal with your use of intrinsic and extrinsic also, but from a softer, maybe less ' black & white ' point of view.

The book deals for example with the depictive level and the mental level of photographs. A photograph being filmbased or digitalbased would be the formal character of the photograph. The depictive level will always be understood by the mental level and the mental level will always be formed by the depictive level. This way, there is still the seemingly ' dividing ' between the two, like your use of intrinsic and extrinsic, but relative to each other, they are more ' uniform ' and interconnected.

It's a good read ( The Nature of Photographs ) although quickly finished, as I had expected it to be a bit more 'philosophical', with more text and less images, when I ordered it online.

Norma Desmond · January 29, 2009

Phylo--

Thanks for the recommendation. I will pick it up.

I didn't mean to come across as being so black and white about this. As you noted, I started off being less so, thus the "somewhat inseparable" statement you keenly picked up on with which I began. To get back to that, I was being more adamant in my distinctions of the concepts than I want to be in my distinctions with regard to the experiences. It is very hard to separate all this stuff out and there is a philosophical sense, from the Quinean or Rortyan perspective, in which this stuff shouldn't be separated out. It's clearly what Wittgenstein was referring to by language games. And there may be a big mistake made in trying to separate concepts more than the experiences from which they derive. But, to a certain extent, Philosophy often boils down to definitions and, while I don't think definitions ever have the certainty or universalism that Plato sought, there is at least some point in trying to make our terms as clear to others as possible. I think much of this is about, for me, an insistence with myself when it comes to my own photography, of letting go of that informational/knowledge-based side, to the extent any of us can . . . the intellectual which may seek to second-guess or completely frustrate the instinctual. That's not the same distinction as "intrinsic"/"extrinsic," but they seem related. It might have been a more interesting thread to have explored the relationship between how we shoot relative to knowledge and instinct and how that relates to how we view what Shore's book labels "depictive" and "mental" levels. It's an interesting distinction and I'll be curious to read about it.

Art X Photography · January 29, 2009

An interesting forum thread, to say the least, Fred. To that extent I congratulate you on it's inception.

Fred

"At what point, though, do we transcend it? Do we go beyond that knowledge and more immediately experience the light and shadow, the textures, the story inside the photo, the composition, technique, visual imagery, symbolic form?"

For me, that point is reached the moment I stop (as in move beyond) appreciating the technique with which it is captured and presented, and start internalising it's significance to me. Even the story conveyed is based on judgement and evaluation but the emotions it stirs in me cannot always be put in words or explained with reason and rational thought. I refer to that as the transcending nature of an image because it's something the photographer could never have anticipated or intended when creating it (unless they knew me and how I would react and even then they could never be really sure).

I too believe in context and/or cultural influences and there in lies the rational, judgemental and evaluative force with which an image is interpreted. But I don't see that as being my relationship with that image. To me context and cultural influences allow me to know and understand things about a photographer, and yes to some extent, interpret their work. As often happens though, we first see the work before we see the worker and so my internalisation of that work often leads me to explore further. That may change my experience of that work (as information comes to hand) but it'll always be remembered (to me) for the feelings it had originally stirred. Kind of like first impressions of people, a gut feeling etc.. As can often happen, my own emotional interpretation of that very same image may change depending on my mood at the time of viewing. This lends itself to another question (Fred has previously asked in another forum) about whether 'art' ,or in this case a photo, can ever be viewed the same way twice. I think it rarely can and so this is the transcending element

Fred "Do you have intrinsically moving experiences that you can articulate?"

As I have suggested earlier, I cannot articulate such experiences because I cannot always explain with reason or rational thought why it is that I feel what I feel. Only that there is an emotional significance to me.

Norma Desmond · January 29, 2009

Art--

Thanks. I like the way you've put it all and can relate to a lot of what you say, . . . drumroll . . . but . . .

"I refer to that as the transcending nature of an image because it's something the photographer could never have anticipated or intended when creating it." I'd want to discuss this further.

It might be true -- to an extent -- for your personal, specific reaction, but a good artist and/or photographer will very much anticipate and intend for you to have such an experience, and can act very much as a guide. The artist will already likely have had a transcending experience herself in the creation. The whole notion of symbolism and significance relies on transcending signs that are somewhat universal and that are often anticipatory and shared. Hitchcock didn't know for sure all my reactions and associations to the (black and white) red blood swirling down the drain adjacent to Janet Leigh's nude body, some based on my own unique history. At the same time, though, he knew just what he was doing, as does any great photographer (whether with intellectual intention or just a good gut feeling). I may laugh at the scene and have personal reasons for doing so, but I would have missed his point. There is communication going on here, not just the movement of emotion in any direction possible. For me, the specialness in art lies in a sort of meeting of transcendence, between the artist and viewer. These forums have addressed this before, and I've never considered art to be a totally subjective or individual experience. To a great extent, it is a bond formed between creator and viewer.

Art X Photography · January 30, 2009

"a good artist and/or photographer will very much anticipate and intend for you to have such an experience, and can act very much as a guide. The artist will already likely have had a transcending experience herself in the creation. The whole notion of symbolism and significance relies on transcending signs that are somewhat universal and that are often anticipatory and shared"

Yes this is true of a great artist. Your example of Hitchcock works well here; but the fear/terror intended by Hitchcock and experienced by his viewers is based not so much in what he allows us to see in that shower scene, but rather on what he doesn't show us. He may very well guide us into that suspense and leave us there to make our own way out; even offer and make innuendos (about how painful and terrifying it would be to be stabbed repeatedly), but I feel that our interpretation and internalisation of such innuendos is based on our own fears of experiencing such a moment. He may have intended that suspense and fear but I don't think he could ever predict the extent and impact of that fear and terror to his audience's psyche. To quote Hitchcock "There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it." This seems to reflect your view (and to some extent mine) but I feel the anticipation he leaves us with is only one part of the equation. Our ability to internalise the terror of being stabbed is the other, as if it's open to interpretation to whatever degree it may be for the viewer.

"For me, the specialness in art lies in a sort of meeting of transcendence, between the artist and viewer."

I agree, but I see this as being more about the viewer than the artist. If I do not experience the fear Hitchcock intends me to experience (because of whatever personal experience I may have had to prevent it from being so) then it is merely a work of art of which I can appreciate it's technical cinematic brilliance.

If a work moves me, whether through fear, sadness, happiness etc... then it has moved beyond it's technical brilliance, however, I think this relies on my internalisation to achieve that objective.

steve_sharf1 · January 31, 2009

Fred" You state above: "I've never considered art to be a totally subjective or individual experience"

There can only be subjective experience. ...

Norma Desmond · January 31, 2009

Steve, what I mean by "art isn't a totally subjective experience" is that the experience of art is dependent on some objective factors, factors that can be shared culturally and inter-personally.

Allen Herbert · January 31, 2009

“Is there something intrinsic to the photograph itself, however, that knowledge, external associations, or information will not be able to change for me?”

Fred, you have asked a direct question so i will give you a direct answer.

From my discussions with you and observing your photography is it obvious you are very much into direct personnel relationships with your various friends. So, the set up photograph of Depp and Kate Moss is about interpersonal relationships which obviously would press all the right buttons for you. For me, apart from the flesh, it is just a mundane photo of a couple together.

Myself i prefer the reality of real world documentary which has a stronger hold on the human condition.

To answer can you change, yes, it would be about a 'looking outward approach' to your photography.<div></div>

Norma Desmond · January 31, 2009

Art-- Great points about what Hitchcock didn't show. I still think that he had intentions and expectations around what he didn't show and that those intentions and expectations are as significant to Psycho as my reactions. We've approached this from different directions but seem to have wandered around the territory productively. Thanks. Allen-- Documentary photographs don't have a weaker or stronger hold on the human condition than other approaches. I draw a distinction between stealing a moment and engaging one. Whether with a posed and staged creation or the most instantaneously-taken street photograph, there can be genuine engagement and there can be significance. (A photographer may be intentionally or unintentionally disengaged and still have an impact on the viewer.) The layers of the human condition can and have been explored and rendered no matter what the camera is pointed at. It's not exclusively the subject matter and it's not exclusively the genre. The intrinsic matters of the Moss/Depp photo and your own: Yours, black and white; Moss/Depp, color. Yours, street; Moss/Depp, set up. Each has a perspective/camera angle intrinsic to it. Your opinion that real world documentary has a stronger hold on the human condition is extrinsic. It is your response to what the photo offers.

inoneeye · January 31, 2009

The intrinsic and extrinsic matters of photographs. I am aware of and therefore use intrinsic characteristics of photography. I use digital differently than film. Large format is clearly different in my hands from 35mm. I am motivated to use my polaroid to create an image that takes advantage of it's unique personality and characteristics. Am i going to shoot indoors or in the street, w/ artificial or natural light. Perspective, dimensions, the borders of the image,......yada. I will shoot, process, present, even see differently under the influence of intrinsic matters. All of the intrinsic (there are many others) matters are part of the tool box we use to impact our own and the viewers responses. At the moment of connection to our eyes and brain it becomes extrinsic imo. Is it street, is it studio, do i/you prefer bw or color or how many times have i seen poorly execute sepia. Platinum, wow ! Is it presented on a backlit monitor or silver emulsion. Is red representational of evil or luck in my culture. The recognition of these potential tools and their influence on photographer and viewer can be put to good use if you choose to use them expressively.

inoneeye · February 1, 2009

“The recognition of these potential tools and their influence on photographer and viewer can be put to good use if you choose to use them expressively.” Interesting point Josh.

On the most fundamental level photography is a 2 dimensional medium that captures light in a moment of time. On the most fundamental level a painting is a primarily a 2 dimensional medium that uses pigment to reflect light. Consider the different reactions that are evoked from the viewer.

The reactions are extremely dissimilar for most. Most people do see photography as an art form through a very different filter than other flat art mediums. What are the intrinsic qualities of a photo? The process of making a photo has unique intrinsic considerations. It can possibly be completed in a very short period of time with what many consider minimal manipulation to have a final product. Painting for most requires much more time and is totally manipulated into existence. Of course that is stating the obvious but the significant impact of this process on the viewer suggest that there are factors that could be explored further.

The process of capturing ‘reality’ with a camera impacts the viewer in a base way that deserves consideration as a tool. If I am to make sexuality my subject in a photo I am aware of the hair trigger I am employing. If I were to paint the same subject I know I will have much more leeway to maneuver before the trigger is cocked. Intrinsic becomes extrinsic.

I am not stating that extrinsic matters are universal, or even response to the intrinsic, they are not. But some responses, reactions are common. This common response may be used to target an audience. Advertisers use extrinsic matters for their agenda. As do artists. Sometimes they hit their mark.

I often intentionally or accidentally use intrinsic / extrinsic ‘signs and symbols’ as an expressive tool. I don’t target my audience by choice. I am my own audience, but I know that some will receive the same impression as myself. I have had real world experience to reinforce that these intrinsic and extrinsic matters have a useful predictable outcome. Not always and not universally. But I am not making photos for everyone. I have experimented with making photos that the majority will respond to in a positive manner.

An example; I shoot nudes often. A hair trigger subject. When I began to display my nudes the most common response I got was “who is that?” I took offense. I was shooting the nude not portraits. Oh well, that was then. In response, I began to cut off the heads of the models. Sometimes in a very abrupt, tongue in cheek manner. I was challenged by someone to create a nude without a head that was still pleasing to ‘everyone’. I intentionally tried to create a commercially viable image. I did succeed in the opinion of the challenger and many others.. I have more comments and offers for this one photo than all others. I used venetian blinds… What is it about venetian blinds that tickles so many? As an architectural designer I have answered that question for myself but I have seen enough venetian blind images to last me 5 lifetimes. As photographers immersed in images yours and my extrinsic response may not be the common one. But like the simple grace of a calla lily and the mystic of the blinds still commonly trigger a strong response from viewers. Intrinsic but variable human response….? For sure I think exposure to a subject is one dominate extrinsic factor. The more we know the less common, average is our response. Can we set this knowledge aside? I believe we can practice and nurture an ability to do so. I find it beneficial to be aware of these matters as I also find great benefit to set the knowledge aside or tune it out. Having a strong visceral response is a great pleasure to me. One that I would greatly miss if I were to become bound by knowledge.

There are some subjects, techniques - styles that are more universally appealing. Why? They are good…? Generally, yes. they are good at what they do. Maybe not great and we may not like them but they have probably have found the key to the intrinsic and extrinsic matters that please a large number of viewers. Sometimes this awareness becomes a successful formula. Most of us would agree to disagree on the merits of those styles that seem to be successful with the masses, but it helps to explain success if measured by approval and recognition and/or sales.

inoneeye · February 1, 2009

BTW. If you come across a good venetian blind or a calla lily image let me know. I still privately shoot them myself.

Art X Photography · February 1, 2009

Josh "The reactions are extremely dissimilar for most. Most people do see photography as an art form through a very different filter than other flat art mediums. What are the intrinsic qualities of a photo? The process of making a photo has unique intrinsic considerations. It can possibly be completed in a very short period of time with what many consider minimal manipulation to have a final product. Painting for most requires much more time and is totally manipulated into existence. Of course that is stating the obvious..." Not sure if you too subscribe to the view you feel "most people" interpret a painting and a photo with Josh, but I would suggest, those (viewers) that matter may very well understand that there is nothing 'obvious', and it is NOT a given that a painting and a photo cannot and do not, for the most part, share a common pre-visualisation or time in their creation. Starting with a blank canvas or a scene/subject still requires intent and an idea for art to be 'manipulated into existence' as you have nicely put it. Art begins in the mind and not on a canvas or the 'capture of light in that moment'. The answers an artist seeks are not found in the dark room (or as it may be in today's age, software) or a canvas. Yes one can sit and stare at a blank canvas for months before picking up a brush, but by the same token, one can pass a scene time and time again before finally deciding it is worthy of being captured.

Your refer to time (taken to create) as being an important factor in why some might interpret one form (painting/photo) with a sense of 'disdain' (I use the word loosely when referring to art) in its approach to being 'art' while marvel at the other. If this is the case then, other than a very select few paintings, most would not be of equal artistic marvel to even the most basic of sculptures if time and effort is a pre-requisit to artistic brilliance. I would suggest the pre-visualisation I referred to earlier is one of two fundamental elements of artistic genius (the other is the actuation of that pre-visualisation). This is particularly true of sculptors who cannot go back and over-paint a mistake on a canvas or delete the last post production treatment in the digital dark room. I do not see time, nor forms of artistic expression as being of intrinsic value, however i see intent and its expression as being so

inoneeye · February 1, 2009

Art, i as a photographer and occasional painter and sculptor, do not subscribe to the viewpoint of most peoples view of the merit of photography as art is any less valid than that of painting or sculpture. As a strong supporter and user of pre-visualization as a tool I do not believe that it is always required, just a beneficial means to an end. I also believe that those who measure quality and value by length of time required to produce, (mostly non practitioners) have a point from their perspective, worth consideration.. A photo in fact is often produced much quicker than a painting or sculpture. I am not quantifying the value myself but it is a consideration for many. I have spent years to achieve a final photographic image. I have also spent minutes, not a frequent common amount of time for a painting. Is this an intrinsic difference,?... perhaps, potentially if the photographer chooses to use it so. It can be used as a tool that differs from other art forms. Fundamentally unique.

don_e · February 2, 2009

Fred, those things you identify as intrinsic to the photograph "But I see it as not intrinsic, like I see shape, color, composition, the internal perspective of the photo, light, shadow." Those intrinsic things reminded me of classic fine art drawing -- a work made to demonstrate the artist's skills in those matters -- and adopted by some photographers, probably moreso in the past than today. This may be a genre in which only the intrinsic is considered by both the artist and viewers.

One can imagine a drawing in the 1820s , a nude study, having the caption "Slave Girl" attached to it without much 'extrinsicallity' happening, but if it were captioned Greek Slave Girl it could begin to acquire extrinsic associations, and if it were titled Helas Enslaved it would definitely acquire political and religious associations of immediate interest (the Greek war of independence). We've already considered knowledge about the artist informing one's understanding of an art work.

If this is a valid reading of your approach to extrinsic/intrinsic, I wonder if it was worth the trouble of starting a thread. Maybe I've missed a nuance or two, but it seems pretty cut and dried.

Norma Desmond · February 2, 2009

"worth the trouble"

As much as any thread is worth the trouble, I suppose.

The nuances added, late in the game, by Josh made me sit up and take notice again. He approached it from the point view of the photographer, rather than the point of view of the viewer. There are tools, intrinsic to photography, that photographers use (intentionally and non-intentionally) to get results. He seems to build on my own more vague ideas of shape, color, etc., and offer more flesh and bones.

I think my greater point was to check what I often feel is a great emphasis on historical context, cultural milieu, biography, prizes awarded, predecessors' influence, followers' homages in what goes into the mix of our experience of a photograph or work of art. The photographer or painter has used very specific tools in order to elicit some pretty specific responses (or at least types of responses). I don't see as much talk about those things in these forums . . . how specifically what we do with our medium affects our viewer.

If the thread gets me to thinking along those lines, more as an active photographer than as a bystander to history or just another person on a long line at the museum, then it was worth it.

Sign In

The intrinsic and extrinsic matters of photographs

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in