Gesture

[don_e]

<p>Fred, you are in San Francisco, right? There are plenty of old houses with old cellars there. Take a tour of such a cellar and imagine coming across the vase. There it is on a shelf or on a pile of boards in the corner. You are to photograph it in situ. Need lighting? Where to plug them in? Need backdrop, where to hang it from? Just how far back can you get to frame it with a 50mm lens, maybe you need a 28?</p>

<p>Consider my approach 'archeological", I'm not going to disturb the bones and shards, just because it would be an aesthetically pleasing arrangement. That's not what I want. That's because I am not an artist. Imagine photographs taken for reasons other than art. This forum should be renamed the Art of Photography Forum.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Perhaps what is simply photographic "technique' should be distinguished from "gesture". If the latter is simply meant to be the application of photographic techniques,</p>

<p>then technique it is. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

I think a distinction can be clearly made between photographing the vase from an objective point of view vs photographing the vase from a

subjective point of view. However, when this objective point of view is presented in a continuous manner ( a whole series of vases

photographed in this objective point of view ) than such a series would contain in itself a rather subjective statement. The work of Bernd and

Hilla Becher for example.

[aplumpton]

<p>Phylo, what is objective from a photographic viewpoint? An automated camera on a tripod, whereupon a random time generator determines the moment of exposure? </p>

<p>Everything is subjective. Perhaps gesture should simply be described as a "photographer's subjective response". If you ask many artists to explain why they painted something or sculpted something in a certain way, likely as not they will say "I don't know really, it is just how I conceived it." The artist is often driven by things he cannot explain in words. I don't know if he wants to evoke concepts like gesture to explain his creative approach. </p>

<p>A measure of success is achieved as the work is judged (subjectively) by others, on its perceived merits (without the need for a lot of waffle or half-convincing explanations to accompany the work).</p>

<p>By their nature, many great artists are a dissatisfied lot. Michelangelo recognized his own dissatisfaction with his (amazing) works in saying something like - I have disgraced myself before God, as I have not done work that is as worthy as I could have. A noble "gesture" from a great artist.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Don--</p>

<p>I didn't say anything about adding lighting or a backdrop. (By the way, I've done little if any shooting in a studio and have rarely used setup artificial lighting . . . flash every now and then. My first tendency, also, would be not to disturb the vase or its context. My tendency likely would be, though, to be more proactive in other ways than you. And those are differences that are stimulating and why I like to discuss others' methods.)</p>

<p>I don't think you have to be an artist at all and nothing I said suggested you should be. I have already understood your archaeological approach.</p>

<p>I said you'd have to stand somewhere.</p>

<p>A photographer, no matter what purpose he had in mind, fine art, documentary, simple recording, would have to stand (or sit) somewhere.</p>

<p>Standing one place rather than another would have to do with the photograph you'd wind up with. I mean, you don't seem to be a photographer who is simply walking around with a point and shoot, completely randomly picking it up at completely random moments to shoot random things. I imagine there is a sort of Jackson Pollock approach to photography. That doesn't seem to be what you're describing about yourself.</p>

<p>You're not concerned with "art" considerations and you're not concerned with influencing the photo and you're not concerned with projecting the photographer into or through the photo. You're also not concerned with the viewer. I actually find that refreshing and intriguing and think you add a lot to this forum, named as it is.</p>

<p>But you are shooting a photo. I agree with Phylo the there's a distinction between photographing from an objective point of view and photographing from a subjective point of view. But there is no completely objective point of view. And I think it's worthwhile recognizing the various ways in which there is no completely objective point of view. One reason there is no completely objective point of view is because you can only stand in one place when shooting, or you can move from this place to that while panning with a long enough exposure. The only guy who doesn't get to stand here rather than there is God, and none of us get to see or to have vases speak to us like God does. We all have perspectives, especially a perspective from which we shoot, and I'm not sure perspective can be absent from a non-abstract photograph of a vase.</p>

<p>As I see it, it's not just the artist who makes decisions about what his photo will look like, even when they are the most objective types of decisions.</p>

[don_e]

<p>Fred, let me point out that I have not said (and do not say) anything about "objective" or "subjective". That this seems to be an issue for others here, does not make it mine.</p>

<p>I described how I would photograph the vase. Is there nothing sugggestive about those contexts? Do you ask yourself, why is this guy using this old broken vase to hold paintbrushes when any empty coffee can from the kitchen or a buck twenty nine container from the hardware store would be much better for that? Or why would an old cracked vase have a place of honor, so to speak, on the mantel in the best room in the house?</p>

<p>"I'd be moved to shoot. In context, the vase would suggest history or narrative and that it has significance to someone, and I would feel it as presence or "liveness". It would seem more than the sum of its parts, having not only tonality and depth or linear composition and textures, but a life. That's how I would really photograph the vase."</p>

<p>What am I failing to communicate to this forum?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>You're failing to communicate how you would shoot the vase. (I know you can't be specific because this is a hypothetical, but the how of the shooting can still be described without the actual choices being specified.)</p>

<p>There's plenty suggestive about those contexts. Yes. For sure. I would ask many of those same questions. And that would affect how and what I shoot.</p>

<p>The forum is about gesture.</p>

<p>"I described how I would photograph the vase."</p>

<p>I don't find that description anywhere. I find only a description of how you found the vase and how you were affected or moved by the vase. Nothing about how you would photograph the vase. Several things you wouldn't do, like disturb it or place a backdrop behind it. But none of what you would do.</p>

<p>"Unlike making a studio portrait of a vase, I may not have the freedom to choose from so many options."</p>

<p>Even out of a studio, there is freedom and there are options. The options would be what lens you would use, where you would stand or sit, whether you'd shoot from below or above, whether you'd move an inch or two because some light reflection was distracting you, what exposure you would set the camera for, what else you thought desirable to include in the frame (do you want to literally show the context you're talking about or just show the vase and assume that the context is having its effect, both ways can work). These may not be labored or even conscious decisions but they are being made and they are being made by you. These are going into the photograph as much as the vase.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Phylo, what is objective from a photographic viewpoint? An automated camera on a tripod, whereupon a random time generator determines the moment of exposure?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you mean that there's always a choice to be made by the photographer, than I agree, and in the example of the Bechers they indeed clearly had a choice to photograph those industrial buildings the way they did but I don't think that that very choice automatically renders the individual images as being any less objective in the way they where photographed vs a possible more subjective approach ( dark burned skies, low vantage point, different angles for every other building ). But like I said, when the work is presented as a whole, it can be argued that a subjective statement is being made by the Bechers even though the buildings where photographed from an objective point of view.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Everything is subjective.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a way I agree, sure can't disagree, but while everything can be percieved as being subjective doesn't necessarily follow that everyhting can be experienced as such.The law of gravity seems a rather objective state of affairs for all of us.</p>

[don_e]

<p>"You're failing to communicate how you would shoot the vase."</p>

<p>"(do you want to literally show the context you're talking about or just show the vase and assume that the context is having its effect, both ways can work"</p>

<p>In the example of the vase on the mantel, I would shoot in such a way that the vase would be seen in context; there would be evidence it was a best room; there might be gold or crystal candlesticks, a fine old timepiece or the like on the mantel. I'd want those in the shot whether in whole or in part and from whatever angle needed to do it. Whether I would sit or stand, or anything else you've asked, would depend on the physical circumstances. Maybe the vase's cracked side is turned away from view, but can be seen in the mirror behind the mantel. I don't know. It depends.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ok, then, so now I'd ask what you meant when you said "really photographing the vase."</p>

<p>Because it seems to me, just like you've suggested that others aren't "really" photographing the vase because of their approaches, someone could easily come along who would NOT include the other elements you might include and say that he is the one "really" photographing the vase. Then it seems that "really" photographing the vase is degrading into meaning "my way of photographing the vase." What does this "really" thing mean to you?</p>

<p>It seems to me we're all really closer here than it seems. You've said above:</p>

<p>"Both in my estimation are not really photographing the vase. They are utilizing the vase to make a photo of something else."</p>

<p>I'd put it this way: We're all utilizing the vase to make a photo.</p>

[don_e]

<p>Fred, in the real world, if I've come across the vase on the mantel it is likely in the house of a friend or family member and it is likely I'll have more than one opportunity to photograph the vase. For things that are not temporary, like people or cars in motion are temporary and cannot be replicated, but persist over longer time I am likely to have taken more than a few snaps of the scene and studying those will have an effect on how I finally photograph it. If I decide to make a definitive exposure, the decisions you ask about become operational. Since it is the conscious juxtaposition of the ordinary and broken vase in the context of richness or percieved value that gives life to the vase for me (I would not ask about it before I was done with photographing it), I'd have to decide whether bokeh might more effectively show that considering the goldy, crystally, mirrored qualities available or whether sharp focus is better for delineating the context.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_e]

<p>"Ok, then, so now I'd ask what you meant when you said "really photographing the vase."</p>

<p>In my examples, one photographer is photographing tonality and depth and the vase provides that. Another vase would do as well. One photographer is photographing linear compostion and texture and the vase provides that. Another vase would do as well. In fact for both, it need not even be another vase. It could be any object that serves the purpose. One photographer is doing something else altogether and only needs a vase as a prop. Some putty in a can would serve as well as the vase.</p>

<p>None of them are really photographing the vase.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_e]

<p>Y'all do see the difference between "really photographing the vase" and "photographing the real vase"? I'm not assuming too much, am I?</p>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

That seems a strange way of putting it, that none of them are really photographing the vase. And I would say that both also clearly are

photographing the real vase ( by the very act of ) but, in the resulting photographs, not necessarily referring to it's percieved factuality in it's surroundings.

[luis_g]

<p>[Don E] " I'm not assuming too much, am I?"</p>

<p>Perhaps you are, just not in the way you mean.</p>

<p> Don E, you may have noticed that there is a perceptible, though varied, consensus here with those that disagree with you. You are communicating well, that is not the problem. The concept is hardly new, and is easy to grasp. I think most here understand what you are saying and accept your method and views in a personal sense. There is disagreement with some of your conclusions, in the general sense when it comes to "photographing the real vase". We differ on the latter, and inasmuch as I admire Fred's near-infinite tenacity and Julie's tact and light-heartedness, I lack the energy to keep going 'round and 'round any further with you on this. I will keep reading and perhaps posting, but on the "real vase", I recuse myself.</p>

<p>Arthur - First, welcome back. Thanks for the definition. You wrote: "Phylo, what is objective from a photographic viewpoint? An automated camera on a tripod, whereupon a random time generator determines the moment of exposure?"</p>

<p>W. Eggleston explored this very idea (and not so obliquely issues regarding auteurship) years ago by randomly plotting coordinates that he later went to with a GPS. He used a random number generator to select the time -- and heading in degrees -- for the exposure. That entire series has never been exhibited, but the weird part is that with all those restrictions, the pictures looked exactly like other Egglestons. We are kidding ourselves (as you remarked) if we deny that we project a lot onto photographs.</p>

<p>Phylo- That's a good point about the Bechers, and it can extend to any type of photography, not just art. Even the pinnacle of objectivity, forensic pictures can, and often do end up that way. Scientific pictures do too. Diane Keaton did just such a book, btw, from crime scene pictures by police photographers.</p>

<p>____________</p>

<p>Krishnamurti - "When there is a division between the observer and the observed there is conflict but when the observer is the observed there is no control, no suppression. The self comes to an end. Duality comes to an end. Conflict comes to an end."</p>

<p>[from: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm]</p>

<p>"Let us ask a simple question: When you look up at night and "see" a star, what is "really" going on? A Newtonian philosopher might answer that you are "really seeing" the star, since, in Newtonian physics, the speed of light is reckoned as being infinite. An Einsteinian philosopher, on the other hand, would answer that you are seeing the star as it was in a past epoch, since light travels with finite velocity and therefore takes time to cross the gulf of space between the star and your eye. To see the star "as it is right now" has no meaning since there exists no means for making such an observation.<br>

A quantum philosopher would answer that you are not seeing the star at all. The star sets up a condition that extends throughout space and time-an electromagnetic field. What you "see" as a star, is actually the result of a quantum interaction between the local field and the retina of your eye. Energy is being absorbed from the field by your eye, and the local field is being modified as a result. You can interpret your observation as pertaining to a distant object if you wish, or concentrate strictly on local field effects."</p>

<p> <br /> <br>

<br /> </p>

<p> </p>

[don_e]

<p>"That seems a strange way of putting it, that none of them are really photographing the vase."</p>

<p>Why? It is at this point in the thread I expect somone to chime in with: This is why I never post to this forum anymore. It's all about semantics.</p>

<p>You can either accept the explanation of my word choice and move on, or nitpick it.</p>

<p>"And I would say that both also clearly are photographing the real vase"</p>

<p>I wouldn't, and didn't. I mean, as opposed to an unreal vase?</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>One can embellish the vase but still see it as a vase, as opposed, say, to a can of putty. The putty won't do. The vase will. The vase is the subject that guides the treatment and decisions for those wanting to add something of themselves or even for those who want to recognize that something else is there with the vase. But, for most, in most cases, no, a can of putty will not do. I may want to adjust the blinds to get more light on the vase or even to add a streak of light but that's not because I'm photographing the light. It's because I want to photograph the vase a certain way. And, at the time, I'm not interested in putty.</p>

<p>As a matter of fact, sometimes I know I have to embellish a little (adjust the blinds for more light) because I know my photograph won't adequately convey how the vase is speaking to me unless I add a little light to make the photo, because the room's a bit too dark.</p>

<p>If a person's moving and I want to capture that (really), then if I don't set my shutter to a slow speed, I won't capture the movement that's speaking to me. NOT doing something like that, like changing my shutter speed consciously, would be in fact embellishing the photo, because if I stopped the action, it wouldn't capture what was really speaking to me. Sometimes, a photographer has to really use his tools consciously and deliberatively, and perform all kinds of manipulations, in order to really photograph.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Arthur, as others have pointed out, "gesture" in this context essentially means "non-verbal communication".</p>

<p>Of course, the use of photos as a form of non-verbal communication is hardly a novel concept for anyone that has shown some crappy holiday snaps to a friend... :)</p>

[don_e]

<p>"There is disagreement with some of your conclusions, in the general sense when it comes to "photographing the real vase". We differ on the latter, and inasmuch as I admire Fred's near-infinite tenacity and Julie's tact and light-heartedness"</p>

<p>I give up. I've not written anything concerning "photographing the real vase", so you, Fred, Phylo, and Julie can discuss "photographing the real vase". Maybe someone clever will query you about photographing unreal vases.</p>

<p>"[Don E] " I'm not assuming too much, am I?"<br>

Perhaps you are, just not in the way you mean."</p>

<p>Considering your "There is disagreement with some of your conclusions, in the general sense when it comes to "photographing the real vase".", I'm certain I'm dead on right.</p>

<p>"but on the "real vase", I recuse myself."</p>

<p>Hey, I don't even have that option, because y'all have decided I wrote "real vase".</p>

<p>Don E wrote: 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.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_e]

<p>"The putty won't do.</p>

<p>It will do for the example referred to: "Audrey Jr" (because the vase is merely a prop for the flowers and may hardly be visible in the photo). Not for the other two examples. You are conflating distinctly different examples.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I never once misquoted you as talking about photographing the real vase.</p>

<p>Don't conflate me with the other interrogators.</p>

<p>You used an extreme example, where putty could substitute for the vase. But it's not an example that would apply to anyone, as far as I know, on this forum, or at least would not apply to the main points of what we're talking about. So I'm not sure why you brought it up. A gesture, even grand gestures, does not mean that the subject is dispensable. What relevance does your example have to this thread? It's very rare that people photograph light (for its own sake) or texture (for its own sake), though it has been tried and is a respectable endeavor. Gestures usually are intimately related to the subjects. You picked a most unusual example. Why?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"A quantum philosopher would answer that you are not seeing the star at all. The star sets up a condition that extends throughout space and time-an electromagnetic field. What you "see" as a star, is actually the result of a quantum interaction between the local field and the retina of your eye. Energy is being absorbed from the field by your eye, and the local field is being modified as a result. You can interpret your observation as pertaining to a distant object if you wish, or concentrate strictly on local field effects."</p>

<p>Luis,</p>

<p>I love this thought, and particularly the first three sentences of it.</p>

<p>The image on my screen is a lot of text on the philosophical and other aspects of "gesture".</p>

<p>But is it really that? My only proof for that is convention (learned and experienced traditions, within my own existance), some proven hypotheses of physics, and the iterative consequences of many instances of observing cause and effect which have shown me that it isn't only emr (electromagnetic radiation) in the spectrum that I can read (visible light) from my screen, but also somewhat intelligible communication (I include my own).</p>

<p>The image we make and preserve, either by a developed emulsion, or some combination of saveguarded electrons, is also a consequence of that electromagnetic radiation that is the carrier between what is photographed (subject) and the photographer. It is as real as we want it to be. Perhaps, though, it has no real basis. If the world had no radiation visible to us, could we nonetheless describe it in terms of sculptures that we would then record by feeling objects?<br /> <br /> "...the pictures looked exactly like other Egglestons."</p>

<p>It is quite possible that Professor Eggleston did exhibit a bias in his final selection of the exhibited arbitrary images. I don't know, but I feel the "monster" of subjectivity might be everywhere, even in academia. <br /> <br /> "Arthur, as others have pointed out, "gesture" in this context essentially means "non-verbal communication".</p>

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>I guess that as we do not emit smells over a great distance, cannot actually touch a subject at a distance of more than about a metre, and that few of us can hypnotise a subject or transfer mind thoughts by some form of electromagnetic radiation, gesture must by default be a proces of using our body in some manner to communicate non-verbally with the subject, or the subject with us.</p>

<p>That our gestures are important when photographing subjects that can understand their significance (i.e, ANIMATE OBJECTS), is fine. That our gestures in manipulating our recording device can also be important, is also fine.</p>

<p>But, that we can gesture, and obtain a tangible response to that, in photographing the St. Louis arch or another inanimate object...well, I must continue to think a bit more about that. Any gesture of the photographer is probably only a mental process within him, unless standing on one foot when photographibg has merit to him, or her.</p>

<p>Perhaps the discussion is considering the physical (...by the nature of the definition of..) gestures within our minds, when we are undertaking the capture of light on film or sensor? I guess that it is possible that there is a bit of pushing and shoving, or "attitudes", of the information neurons, or whatever else is involved (physically, chemically or physico-chemically), in the functioning of the brain....?</p>

<p>Perhaps the only gesture that is of significance, and which involves inanimate things as well, may be that created by Entropy (hopefully that type of physical degradation of order, or gesture, applies only to one's body and not to one's mind). That is something thermodynamically hypothesised a hundred years ago, and probably true. </p>

<p> </p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Arthur, it is really not that far to go to understand the spirit of how this is being used by some. It just took a couple of minutes to find these. If it doesn't work for ya, no great loss.</p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

<p>2. <strong>action communicating something: </strong>an action intended to communicate feelings or intentions</p>

<p>2.Something that takes the place of words in communicating a thought or feeling: <a onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/expression" target="_top">expression</a>,<a onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/indication" target="_top">indication</a>, <a onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/sign" target="_top">sign</a>, <a onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/token" target="_top">token</a></p>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

 

[don_e]

<p>"Don't conflate me with the other interrogators."</p>

<p>Apologies, I will not lump you in with the others.</p>

<p>"What relevance does your example have to this thread?"</p>

<p>Fred, you wrote: "I would start by asking if you recognize a difference in viewing a photo of the vase vs. viewing the vase itself."<br /> This is the origin and first appearance of the vase. You asked me not about gesture but about the viewing. I did not answer your question because, it seems self evident that viewing a photo and viewing the object itself is different. Instead I wrote about how the subject gestures to me (also I opted out of discussing gesture because I don't understand what is meant, maybe because it has not been clearly explained, or maybe because it bumps into my understanding of gesture in other disciplines). I replied by wanting to discuss a specific vase, not any vase. and I gave some examples, including "I might fill it with flowers and in Photoshop clone in Barbie faces and title it Audrey Jr."<br /> (If that reference is obscure, it refers to Roger Corman's Little Shop of Horrors in which the people eating plant is named Audrey Jr, which when it blooms, the face of a victim is at the center of each flower.)</p>

<p>So, you see, it was your question about "viewing" that was off the topic. My response went back to gesture, and I described how and under what circumstances the subject gestures to me. It is not on a light stage in a studio.</p>

<p>and then later I wrote: One photographer might take a cracked and chipped vase and turn that part away from the camera because he wants to photograph tonality and depth, and the cracks would break up the smooth transistions. Another photographer might turn the cracks and chips towards the camera because he sees the lines of the cracks and the shape and textures of the chips as a satisfying composition. Both in my estimation are not really photographing the vase. They are utilizing the vase to make a photo of something else.</p>

<p>Then I described some scenarios in which the vase really is photographed, ie, where the vase is the reason for the photo, not for tonality or composition or as a supporting piece in a composite.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks, Josh, but that was understood. </p>

<p>How that can iteract with inanimate or other non-human and non-animal objects (which include a great many things photographed) is indeed a problem though. Unless it is felt that one's feelings, intentions, actions, expressions, signs or tokens can be deciphered by those objects? Have a look at Jay Maisel's comment on "light and gesture".</p>