Gesture

luis_g · February 25, 2009

Fred wrote: "Photos tell stories."

Garry Winogrand said: “photographs do not tell stories ; they tell you what something looks like to a camera”.

The plurality of interpretations of any picture, regardless of the story-telling intentions of the photographer, tells us GW has a point.

Many theorists agree with GW, saying Photographs suggest, describe appearances, maybe make you ask questions, and perhaps move you. Without the exoskeleton of captions and/or context, most photographs, regardless of gesture, have a difficult time with storytelling. Take most journalistic pictures away from their captions, and what remains? Maybe something analogous to a strange attractant.

Good photographs are like the grain of sand that gets inside an oyster, and the oyster, unable to expel it, encysts it in the nacreous material we call a pearl.

If a photograph is good, the viewer won't expel it, and create a story around it that conforms to his preconceptions and internal logic. Gestures are a critical part of how all this happens.

don_e · February 25, 2009

I think I'll take a pass on gesture for now because what is being discussed is already addressed, at least for me, in other ways. I understand, though, the value of the concept, especially for photographers working in genres where the tendency is towards posing -- not just the subject, but the photographer's urge to direct is also posing. But I realize I may be 'tone deaf' to the idea.

At common shutter-speed we will capture what we cannot consciously see unless the subject is motionless. I'm reminded of a 'what's wrong with my image' thread where the op took photos of his daughter twirling. Nicely composed, nice expression, pretty props, good lighting, but he managed to capture the one instant when she would appear motionless while her hair and dress were in full-flight. I encounter subjects in the controlled falling we call walking; in the cycle of stepping there are similar 'stops', the moment when the subject looks as if they've just kicked a soccer ball, for example, or at the awkward instant of controlling the fall.

These may not be what the concept of gesture is about, but if not, then, in my photography, I don't think it would apply because I do not have to deal with the pose or the self-consciousness of being photographed, and I am pretty good at not directing, and instead can wait for it if it is coming, or if not, move on as the case may be.

luis_g · February 25, 2009

It is not only applicable to posing. Some of the best and fastest street photographers used gesture to great advantage, as well as guys like S. Shore with his portraits as well as 'scapes.

don_e · February 25, 2009

A lot of street photography is portraiture. Activity, movement, location -- the street itself -- are not visible; there's a head shot, the street portrait. The subject's only activity is being photographed. Landscape, as well as macro bugs and flowers, are portraits, too, just not of people.

fate_faith_change_chains · February 25, 2009

" In order to ' give meaning ' to the world, one has to feel oneself involved in what he frames through the viewfinder. This attitude requires concentration, a discipline of mind, sensitivity, and a sense of geometry. It is by great economy of means that one arrives at simplicity of expression. One must always take photographs with the greatest respect for the subject and for oneself... To take photographs means to recognize - simultaneously and within a fraction of a second - both the fact itself and the rigourous organization of visually percieved forms that give it meaning. It is putting one's head, one's eye, and one's heart on the same axis. "

Henri Cartier - Bresson

The above makes a good description of how I understand the concept of " gesture " to be within the context of photography.

nicolerenee · February 25, 2009

I've been thinking about this discussion and here is what seems to resonate the most with me.

In my mind, Gesture signifies action, intent, emotion. A gesture of kindness is an action done with intent. A physical guesture, an action in the bodily sense, is a physical maninfestation of emotion with or without intent. So then gesture can be related to photography in the physical action of the photographer (to capture light, form, lines, expression, etc...) as he relates his intent and emotion concerning the subject being photographed (or idea's about the subject, ect... whether his movements are done as conciously and deliberately as Fred's or with unconcious abandon resulting from pure emotion) and then the resulting image is in itself a gesture from the photographer to the viewer.

leon_b1 · February 25, 2009

I've been following this thread for a while and I still fail to see how 'gesture' as it applies to the actions of the photographer, whether intentional or in unconscious response, is substantively different from 'composition'. For example , to take Fred's point:

The gestures of photography are working with light . . . for effect, setting exposure . . . for effect, moving the camera just enough . . . for the desired effect. It is how we personalize those non-verbal communicative devices at our fingertips when we hold the camera and when we enter the darkroom or the digital lab.

</blockquote>

I think we can agree there are conscious elements to composition, and that a photographer familiar with his or her equipment will also make a certain number of subconscious, almost intuitive aesthetic (or even technical) choices based on response to the subject - or to the 'gestures' of the subject. But I don't agree that composition and 'gesture', certainly as it applies behind the camera, have been conflated to any great detriment of meaning. What you've described above as "the gestures of photography" are further nuances of composition, not all of them, as we've discussed, conscious, but nevertheless a part of the same process. If you find the concept of 'gesture' useful to separate out certain elements, fair enough; but I still have to admit I don't find it particularly, well, compelling.

leon_b1 · February 25, 2009

Or rather, as Don E put it, I feel that it's already "addressed in other ways".

aplumpton · February 25, 2009

Bravo. Leon. Compelling is the last word I would also employ in describing this concept. No offense intended to Don, but I believe we can often get caught up in a lot of extemporaneous or misleading waffle, designed it sometimes seems to embellish, or at worst to distract, from the photography itself.

Norma Desmond · February 25, 2009

Luis-- GW has a point, though limited. It's a down-to-earth observation and points us back to the medium, which is good.

Storytelling is not undercut by a plurality of interpretations. I distinguish between a photo telling a story and telling THE story. I respond to some photos as story-telling without assuming that the story is the one others are getting or one the photographer intended. The photographer may present a narrative-like tale without specifics. Some photos are expressionistic, some more impressionistic, and some downright narrative (even if nonspecific).

I don't agree that captions and context are necessary. Often a story's origin and framework is in the photograph. Accompanying words and information will often provide guidance, specifics, and even a change of interpretation, which might or might not be welcome.

Don-- I don't think all photographers are gestural, so I understand your position.

Nicole-- For me, they're both at play. ("Pure emotion" could be tricky). Even at my most deliberate, there can be abandon informing that. To get a good photo, one often has to "translate" the abandon and emotion into the medium. Abandon and emotion don't automatically come out as a decent photo. That's where practice, knowledge, learning, craft, and technique come in.

I recently did a project where there were one or two moments where I was so moved that I just couldn't/didn't grab my camera. Afterward I wondered if I had missed the best pictures. A friend reminded me that sometimes the emotional experience shouldn't be disrupted by the camera and that those moments may not have made the best pictures. We talked about one of the pictures that I was, in fact, most pleased and moved by. That photo was not one of the emotional high-points of the entire shoot for me. I took a more mundane moment and gave it what it needed to be the kind of photograph that would reach beyond the "actual" experience of when it was taken. That's what's significant about photography (and other arts). The relationship between emotion/abandon and the photograph is not one-to-one. It's not like the emotion necessarily originates in the "real" world and passes through the photograph to the viewer. I think it's a much more nuanced and complicated process than that. And those emotional moments I did not "capture" because I didn't shoot the moment got captured anyway, in some other photographic moment.

Leon-- I hope I didn't come across as discounting composition. I was responding to the other thread where I thought composition and gesture were being conflated. One can gesture with composition as well as any other aspect of photography. As Luis mentioned, one can gesture with light. But composition and gesture, to me, are not the same. Gesturing with light, to me, is not a compositional consideration. Light interacts with composition and may or may not become a compositional element, but I don't see light as compositional, strictly speaking. Nor do I see focus as a compositional element. Any photo, whether taken by a child in whose hands a camera is put or the most intentional adult has, by definition, a composition. To gesture with composition is something far fewer people do.

luis_g · February 25, 2009

Fred, after reading the expanded version of your take on story-telling, I realize we are on the same page, vis-a-vis "a" story vs "the" story. The plurality of meanings in viewers' minds is a strength (almost like viable mutations). I don't think it undercuts anything. I also don't think captions are de rigueur, but with news pictures, which are often telling _the_ story, they narrow down the range of potential outcomes in the readings of the image. Otherwise a recent Gaza war shot might become a generic Middle East hostility pic.

jtk · February 25, 2009

Fred, you responded: "I'm not sure why you've stressed the involvement of the subject and responses of the viewer and talked about the photographer not making the gesture."

I don't deny that the photographer "makes" HIS gesture, but I do deny that he makes the entire photographic gesture. I don't think "making" the gesture is quite right in any case...I prefer "participates." Actually, I think the gesture doesn't even exist until that "triangle" you mentioned is complete.

...however, the photographer may not be good enough to get a rise out of viewers other than himself (the photo-wanker "makes" gestures for himself)...or the subject itself may fall short: it makes no gesture.

don_e · February 25, 2009

"No offense intended to Don, but I believe we can often get caught up in a lot of extemporaneous or misleading waffle, designed it sometimes seems to embellish, or at worst to distract, from the photography itself."

No offense taken...actually, I don't know what you thought might have offended me.

inoneeye · February 25, 2009

Gesture is less than composition and more than composition. Gesture is more in that it will move, influence the emotional reaction to your image and body of work. It is less in that it is one element of your composition. It is an effective compositional tool for communicating emotions in a 2 dimensional otherwise stagnant moment. Photography is obviously a non verbal medium. The significance of gesture in non verbal communication is paramount to how well you can communicate and read others. It makes sense to me that active thinking to understand and develop my interpretive skill of gestures is very important. As actors learn the importance and usage of non verbal communication to refine their craft, i believe that the best photographers through intent or intuitively also understand how to refine their own gesturing skills. Understanding how you gesture is to give you greater command of your unspoken language. Recognizing how ones’ gestures appear to others brings its own rewards as well. In It is important to me to understand how my body language gives me more options to be myself or communicate with clarity, it becomes very essential to me to understand and try to master my gestures in a non verbal language. I think it particularly important to any photographer who wishes to work with emotions as a subject.

As to what a practical applied gesture is in an image, I can only suggest what it is for me. “instead of using the whole body we move our hand or eye or sigh ....” An actor may raise an eyebrow or slightly slump their shoulder to nuance the story. A photographer may deepen a selected shadow or skew a framed photo in the background to tell the story. How they do this is a significant part of their style and personality. This obviously becomes part of the composition. There are grand gestures that become the most obvious part of the composition (almost or actually becoming the subject), but there are gestures that far less blatant. A blatant gesture might be venetian blind lighting or vignetting. But generally when i see a venetian blind photo it is less a gesture and more the subject of the photo. I have seen images that use blinds as a gesture to support a bigger/other than blinds subject and composition. For me an effective gesture in photography is much like a raised eyebrow for the actor. The emotional character of the photo is elevated and even guided. If my intent were to project an emotion into an image I would choose the gesture that is appropriate to my intent. (This is not to say that you WILL have the same response, no I am first choosing to communicate with me. If you should happen to come along on the ride, all the better. ) If my intent was to reflect a moment in my history that I experienced anxiety and frustration from an unrequited love, in my way, I might tap into that experience by making some obvious compositional choices that I consider gesturing. Ie; maybe severe angles that are disquieting, not all severe angles are disquieting. (Not all raised eyebrows suggest funny or bewildered or suggestive …) It needs further refinement. It is through intuition and/or active learning that I might choose a particular lens that lends itself to a degree of distortion which on a particular angle makes it more urgent, energized.

The more i refine my choices the more important my gesturing becomes to defining, presenting my own personality. Is this composition, yes. Is it only composition, no. In developing a critical thinking skill toward photography for practical usage, gesture illuminates much. Is it in the refinement, the awareness and intent that I find gesture? Like love, like art, I cannot put gesture into a neat little box but when I need it or see it, I use it and recognize it.

jtk · February 25, 2009

Chuck Close: "I'm the orchestrator of the experience of the viewer." <a href="http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8370">http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8370</a>

aplumpton · February 25, 2009

Don, from what has been discussed in this thread, my impression of this vaguely defined term, "gesture", is simpy - extemporaneous or misleading waffle! I'm glad, though, that my critique does't offend you.

Adding one's personality or state of mind to the composition or conception of an image is obvious - we need no special word for it.

Was Picasso "gesturing" when he spilled his heart out in conceiving "Guernico"? Was Eugene O'Neill's "Long Day's Jouney into the Night" a product of his gesturing?

C'mon, let's be serious.

don_e · February 26, 2009

"I'm glad, though, that my critique does't offend you."

No. Gesture is not my terminology and I do not quite understand what it means, but it is obviously important to some photographers here and if their pnet photos are an indication, they are good photographers. So, I take it seriously. I think, though, that the way it is conceptualized is geared towards the concerns of what I am calling 'portrait' photography. I mean photographs that have a main subject that dominates the frame, a person, tree, rock, for which the composition and lighting is chosen; I calling those 'portraits'. Photographs are stills, and a 'portrait' that does not communicate the aliveness of the subject (even a rock) can be technically good as to composition, lighting, exposure, yet appear dead -- "inanimate" is my word for it. Frozen. The concept of "gesture" seems a way to avoid deadness and express the animation or lifeforce or libido or presence of the subject (fill in whatever term works for you).

Since I almost always shoot casually people doing things, not just standing or sitting, I consider the successful photo to be one that implies the moment before the shutter is released and the next moment after the exposure. What I mean by animation in the still is implied by something akin (I think) to what is meant by gesture. I tend to watch peoples' hands and feet more than their faces once I've seen them as a subject. That may seem strange, but when I count up the shots that didn't work out as I'd hoped, it is the hands and feet that betrayed my intention.

luis_g · February 26, 2009

No, Arthur, _you_ disagree with the term, the need for a word for it, or any further understanding/discussion. You've belabored the point and, obviously, many disagree, finding the thread, unlike you, serious, interesting and productive.

The fact is no one is disrespecting/ridiculing your viewpoint. You, on the other hand, keep insisting that to not think like you is "misleading waffle" or not "serious". In other words, the thread is linguistic deceit and a fraud. If that's not discouraging thoughtful commentary, I don't know what is.

Don E. And Leon both hold a somewhat similar viewpoint to yours, but unlike you, they have expressed their disagreement in perfectly civil terms.

From the Terms of Use: "...treat others with respect. Postings that attack another person's motivation, intelligence, or character degrade the quality of the discussion and discourage thoughtful comments by others."

[ This proves Fred Goldsmith's insightful comment about how these threads degrade.]

inoneeye · February 26, 2009

"Adding one's personality or state of mind to the composition or conception of an image is obvious - we need no special word for it." I don't think it is so obvious in most images i see. It is uncommon. The 'word' gesture is no more special than expression, f-stop, framing, tonality, vignetting and so on. Certainly it is a more difficult word and concept to tap into and to define than many others. But that alone does not invalidate it to some. me. It is a word to describe an action taken to communicate without words and outside the most commonly used language and ordinary actions in photography. There is more to a gesture than adding personality or state of mind. That is grossly simplified. There is direction, misdirection, clarity, reflection, humor, mood, and it does go on and on. It is a form of non verbal communication, of language. Language can accomplish much more than what is obvious. Generally, but not necessarily it requires a strong pre visualization due to the intent and awareness of the impact/message of the gesture. A language that is restricted by your lack of knowledge of it and as open as your ability to master it dictates. No piece of art is created solely by gesture. But i would say that a piece of art may be a gesture. Guernica.

inoneeye · February 26, 2009

Hi John. "I'm the orchestrator of the experience of the viewer." I often feel this way but I would add - now it is in their hands. I like to think of the viewer as one, not as a unknown group. I generally prefer the one on one approach with any form of communication. If i am shooting purposefully it makes it easier for me to focus and convey my intent in my way. I don't have to concern myself with the opinions, tastes, interpretations, the many voices of the group, just mine and one.

don_e · February 26, 2009

I find both the photographer and the viewer to be the least interesting things about photography. I ignore them -- including me as much as I can. If gesture is about them, not the subject, then it explains why I am finding it difficult to relate to the idea.

aplumpton · February 26, 2009

Don, Luis, Josh. Thanks. I understand your points. Perhaps I should be a bit more of open mind in regard to the word or the concept.

Nonetheless, I think it would be very useful to have an unambiguous definition of it, to better accept or reject the concept, or discuss it.

luis_g · February 26, 2009

Don, I can not ignore or exclude any part of the process. A gesture undetected, mis-timed or bypassed by the photographer ignores the subject. If the viewer doesn't see it at some level, then it's as if it never happened or was never pictured. For me, it's a system, and all of it matters.

Gesture isn't everything, but it is an integral part of the whole thing. Gesture can come from the subject and/or the photographer. When there's synergy between the two, the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts.

Yes, the subject is important, but without a photographer present, with all their shortcomings and limitations, their gesture, actions, appearance and being are dwindling echoes left to the memory of witnesses.

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the darkness at Tan Hauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die"

--- Roy Batty/Blade Runner

don_e · February 26, 2009

Luis: "Don, I can not ignore or exclude any part of the process"

Real actual viewers might not exist. The photographer can imagine a viewer. I think this "viewer", who is a significant actor in this forum, is most often just the photographer (one can see this on the hoof when posters seamlessly switch pov between creator and viewer), and the photographer who communicates to this viewer through the manipulation of the subject, is communicating with himself. Thus ignoring the viewer is ignoring the photographer. Otherwise, there are 7 or so billion potential real viewers.

By taking on the pov of the imaginary viewer, by turning the subject into an object of use, the photographer can become less "real" and more a construct of his imagination.

"Yes, the subject is important..."

I mean something other than the obvious, no photographer, no photo. The subject is real already. It is not the (imaginary) "subject". It is the real subject which gestures and communicates to the photographer. If the photographer is so caught up in his intention to communicate to the viewer through the photograph, the subject is merely an object of use for the purpose, a container to be filled with meaning, message, or significance, and the photo becomes a proxy for the photographer himself. I'd rather the subject speak for itself.

So, I ignore the photographer and the viewer as much as I can, at least until they are real, not imaginary.

After three years on this forum I'm used to being slagged for this approach, so no one should think I might be offended if they feel the need to unload about it.

Norma Desmond · February 26, 2009

Don--

The way I see it, we are discussing gesture because we are discussing photographers. We are photographers. We create the photographs that bring you the subjects. I don't believe that the subject you are interested in is separable from its presentation by the photographer. So, when you are drawn to the subject of the photograph, in one way or another, you are drawn this way or that because of the photographer's gesture, if he has gestured. There will, of course, be other factors. You may have your personal stake in the subject of the photo, it may ring certain bells for you. But that subject has been brought to you by a photographer. You may or may not think about the photographer. You may or may not consider what he's done. And some photographers will be more overt about interjecting themselves into the photo. I can gesture by wildly waving my hands at you from across the street or I can slyly slip you the finger so it's barely noticeable.

John--

I understand and agree that there is a process going on here, among photographer, subject (subject, or photo, or

both?), and viewer. But I keep sensing that you're trying to strip the photographer of some power by actually making the viewer part of the gesture. I like to think of the photographer as a responsible agent. Just because the ultimate interpretation of and reaction to a photo will be out of his or her hands (to varying degrees) once the public views it, doesn't take away from the purposeful manner in which the photographer was utilizing the various elements to present the subject in a particular light. When she nods or waves at you from across the street, you may interpret that and will be part of a process, you may also simply be wrong in your interpretation. But when that occurs, you say "She waved at me," not we participated in a gesture together. Yes, it took you, the viewer, to give meaning to it and be the recipient of it, but you didn't make it, she did.

As for wanking, there is a sense in which the viewer completes the picture. But there's no reason why the photographer can't be the viewer. Many a great photographer and artist will not be seen or appreciated while he continues to produce. His drive, even obsession, keeps him going, his love for the medium, his Muse, even an imagined audience for his expression. The responses and accolades may or may not come later but the gesture can be made even in the quiet at 3AM sitting alone in front of Photoshop.

Sign In

Gesture

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