Gesture

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Arthur, you're confusing yourself... "<a href="http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/gesture.gif">Gesture</a> " in this discussion simply means "to communicate without words".</p>

<p>For example, if someone wants to communicate what something looks like to someone else, he can take a snap of it, and present it to someone for viewing. No words are required, of course. This is "gesture".</p>

<p>It's all much easier to understand if you replace the word "gesture" with "communicate without words".</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>and no body movements are required.<br>

<br /></p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

Don, "....but, in the resulting photographs, not necessarily referring to it's percieved factuality in it's surroundings." <<< What I said and

important for not being totally misunderstood, regarding what I meant as seeing no difference between ' really photographing the vase ' ( not

only using it for it's texture or tonalities ) and ' photographing the real vase '.I think not seeing any difference, doesn't mean me assuming that you

where talking about photographing the real vase, vs an unreal one. I may have just expressed myself too unclear, and even more so now or

just misunderstood you, wich I guess does happen if someone doesn't naturally and mostly thinks, speaks, and writes in english.

[aplumpton]

<p>Paul, you may well be right, but I think that your definition is only one of more than a few concepts floating around.</p>

<p>In the specific case of "communicating without words" (and in your case, and from your example, as it applies to the product and not the photographer), the poster, if that was his intention, should probably have used your clearer definition.</p>

<p> </p>

[inoneeye]

<p>

 

<p>We have discussed different forms a gesture can take. To be found throughout the thread. Don originally posted an open query to how gesture was used by Fred and then it blossomed from there. Gesture like expression has different meanings and is not used as some scientific or medical terms would be, as pointed as an arrow head. Gesture would probably not be used in a technical forum.<br>

We are feeling it out.</p>

 

</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Josh, yes, "gesture" in this context is not necessarily concerned with physical body movements.</p>

<p>For example, a photo of a sunset "gestures" the information that the photographer is attempting to communicate to the viewer. That information may be "I saw this and took a picture of it", or "This is what a sunset looks like", or "I think this is really, really pretty".</p>

[don_e]

<p>Phylo, the difference between "really" and "real": all the photographers in my example are photographing the real vase. "Really" modifies "photographing", not "vase". The vase is really real however it is photographed or whether it is photographed or not.</p>

<p>My interest in subjects is in specific things, not classes of things. My examples of not really photographing the vase can be understood if you accept that an identical vase would serve their purpose. My example photographers, let's say, found their vases at a junk store. They each buy two vases in the same condition. It doesn't matter which of the two vases they put on the light stage. If they drop one and shatter it, they've got a backup. They aren't really photographing the (one, individual, with its own history) vase. They are really photographing something else which both vases provide. My examples of really photographing the vase require the one, individual, with its own history vase, and not any other vase. Setting a cracked cheap vase from the junk store on the mantel or on a bench in the cellar would be really photographing *another* *different* (but also real) vase.</p>

<p> </p>

[inoneeye]

<p><!--StartFragment-->

<p >When we begin to make those choices we begin to have a voice. A voice in photography will lead to using gestures, (action communicating something) one of the myriad of elements that become our technique. With exceptions? I haven’t gone there yet but will give it some thought.</p>

<p >Voices vary. Documentary styles vary greatly. But possibly in the spirit off what you are saying, I think of the word embellishment.(thanks Fred) and that you do not wish to embellish.? Would your hope be to have a unembellished record of the vase? You are creating documents? Are you a record keeper (my words)?</p>

<p >A genuine personal question i would pose to you Don, to know you. What motivates you to photograph? </p>

<p >Phylo has introduced some significant photo documentarians. Karl Blossfeldt was a record keeper for referencing shapes found in nature for his ironwork, sculptures. His photos are as ‘true’ as i have seen in b&w and many consider them art.. they are incredible esthetically, (not technically) and as unembellished as is possible I think. Blossfeldt usually stripped it all away, to get at the form without distraction. And I can pick out a Blossfeldt from across the room. I will go out on a limb here and say that his stamp goes beyond his subject matter. Like many sparsely embellished film and photo documentarians some of the choices that are inevitable to record light and subject begin to distinguish the author. Sparse is the most obvious, but choosing to shoot as found is a gesture that becomes distinctive. Choosing to add any artificial lighting to meet minimal requirements of a recording device, film or digital or color or bw or grain or sensitivity, or waiting for different light. Composing with or without thought, pausing for a moment to change anything. Post and presentation are impossible to achieve without significant choices to make. Bresson tried to minimize this by having others do ‘as is’ straight printing. Well there is a long list of choices that choice determined. All these decisions are integral, inseparable from a voice, Although in an attempt to minimize changes.</p>

<p >I hope that the dirty emails don't come flying but I have always thought of Bresson as a record keeper extraordinaire. His work/records have made me feel that i have been privy to other cultures and times that i have not personally experienced. Like a insightful, entertaining and extraordinary slideshow. But i do get the sense that i am seeing it through his eyes, filters. He embellished his records and they became distinctive to a point. In this he was not the same as Blossfeldt even with subject aside. .. He allowed himself many more choices than Blossfeldt whose images scream his name. In part it is the nature of the beast called street shooting. Like your street shots Don, Bresson chose framing, inclusions, exclusions and of course moment and much more. For me this is inseparable from creating a an image as document.</p>

<p >Well, in my world i have seen many record keepers that i hold in high regard. Some of my best friends … are talented record keepers but would not like to see themselves or what they are doing as a talent. It just is. Fair enough, it is not art but it is communication, a record a documented account.</p>

<p >I think having a voice is unavoidable when creating images. Having a non verbal voice like in photography will lead to gesturing. Perhaps just not distinctive. Attempting to not interject your voice is difficult and admirable for documentarians and record keepers.</p>

<!--EndFragment--></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Gesture has become a popular descriptor possibly because humans are desirous of change (not to be always conflated or confused with evolution or progression), art magazines must sell, photographers must convince the public of the "significance" of their approach, and new catch words must be hatched - The more elusive the concept, or more tangentially directed the postulate, the better!</p>

<p>As far as I can discover, the works of people like Bresson or Salgado or Kenna, and numerous great artists before them, had or have had absolutely no need to invoke new concepts and terms to describe their personal processes and artistic approaches, which I imagine for them were part of an entirely self evident and simple process.</p>

<p>Can you imagine Van Gogh or Da Vinci or Picasso talking of gesture? If they applied non-verbal communication, I would imagine it was simply thought of as part of the normal human everyday inteaction between individuals.</p>

<p>The post modern and post-post modern photographers would seem to abhor the simplicity of the artistic process, many projecting the need of <i>conceptual crutches</i> to explain their approach or their work.</p>

<p>Empowerment, gesture, ... Bah, humbug!</p>

<p> </p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Arthur, yes, this would seem to be the case.</p>

[don_e]

<p>"But possibly in the spirit off what you are saying, I think of the word embellishment.(thanks Fred) and that you do not wish to embellish.? Would your hope be to have a unembellished record of the vase? You are creating documents? Are you a record keeper (my words)? "</p>

<p>The sharp distinction between subjective and objective does not capture the nuances of the interpenetration of our self and the world around us. It is my relationship with the subject I'm interested in. If there is no relationship, then there is no urge to photograph it (the subject does not gesture to me). I can photograph it, of course, but it wouldn't have beckoned me to it.</p>

<p>"A genuine personal question i would pose to you Don, to know you. What motivates you to photograph?"</p>

<p>It is an important way I related to things. It's my gesture in response to the gesture of what becomes the subject.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Josh, a correction: It was I who introduced Blossfeldt and the others, not Phylo.</p>

<p> </p>

[inoneeye]

<p>sorry about that Luis.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Arthur wrote: "Can you imagine Van Gogh or Da Vinci or Picasso talking of gesture?"</p>

<p> I don't have to. Van Gogh did just that. Here, from his letter to Theo dated May 11, 1885 (Vincent was 32), and the comment touches upon the discussion here :</p>

<p><label>"At present I am busy putting into practice, on the drawing of a hand and an arm, what Delacroix said about drawing: “Ne pas prendre par la ligne mais par le milieu.” That gives opportunity enough to start from ellipses. And what I try to acquire is not to draw a <em>hand</em> but the <em>gesture</em> , not a mathematically correct head, but the general <em>expression</em> . For instance, when a digger looks up and sniffs the wind or speaks. In short, <em>life</em> ."</label></p>

<p> </p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Luis, yes, it certainly seems that many artists have been prolific waffle-mongers over the years, so it was surely unfair of Arthur to lay the blame solely with the latest batch...</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Luis, touché! Well,... perhaps only a demi-touché.</p>

<p>Gesture of a hand, or expression of a face, is the realm of the painter or sculptor, who has all the degrees of artistic freedom denied in very large part to the photographer. Yes a photograph can be a rendition too - great photographic portraits can express more than their subject alone. We all have experiences of having photographed something, the final image of which (including our darkrom or lightroom modifications to comply with or enhance what we are trying to communicate) transcends the "record" picture.</p>

<p>What has mostly been talked about above, if I am not wrong (and I might be, a 100 or so posts is difficult to keep up with), is the gesture of the photographer vis-a-vis his or her human or other subject, and not the rendition photographed (or of the artist himself and not of his conception which he paints). This non-verbal expression between the two individuals, and in some cases with unresponsive subjects (inanimate), seems to be the type of gesture that some artists are invoking.</p>

<p>But bravo nonetheless for researching Monsieur Van Gogh. I agree on the singular aspect of gesture that you raise. even if it is a specific one.</p>

<p> </p>

[inoneeye]

<p>"As far as I can discover, the works of people like Bresson or Salgado or Kenna, and numerous great artists before them, had or have had absolutely no need to invoke new concepts and terms to describe their personal processes and artistic approaches, which I imagine for them were part of an entirely self evident and simple process."<br /> I absolutely agree. But numerous does not speak for all 'great' artists. As people differ so will approach to photography and in learning. And of those you mention Bresson is one who I am fully aware avoided these discussions. In his earned and admired simple instinctual, humble way would never trash another approach, of course i am projecting. Like Bresson i often go into instinct mode when i am carrying my camera. His apparent reverence for 'Zen in the Art of Archery' (an english translation)(JK :0) suggest a preference for letting go of technique, which i find essential when i am after the fleeting moment. This does not account for how one arrives at that ability. Many paths are taken. I paint, draw, sculpt and observe and listen to others approach, that may differ greatly from my own. Someone else may choose to avoid all contact with the methods and ideas of others.<br /> Arthur, I have learned some insights from the others on this thread. So far all i have learned from your contributions is was does not make sense or work for you. Perhaps you could expand on where you were heading early in this thread when you made this comment. <br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092">Arthur Plumpton</a> Feb 24, 2009; 11:57 p.m.<br /> "I interpret gesture as a "form of art or photographic expression", and not some body movement or posture.<br /> But I guess I am gesturing alone on that!"</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092">Arthur Plumpton</a> , Feb 24, 2009; 12:45 p.m.<br>

"I believe that the "Autonomists" (The 1948 "global refusal", sometimes even linked to "The Quiet Revolution" and Separatism in Canada) started their Montreal contemporary art movement, which rejected past art and employed, amongst other approaches, gestural movements in painting. Riopelle's paintings, Pollack's as well, are no doubt other examples of "gestural" approaches applied to the canvas.<br>

In photography? Perhaps some of Hass' s work? Or perhaps randomly directed photgraphic imaging?"<br>

<br /> was something of interest for me.May i take it as simple clarification? a tongue in cheek gesture? i really don't know.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Josh,</p>

<p>The answer to your question is simple.</p>

<p>Lacking the benefit of an upfront definition of "gesture" at the start of this post (I since understand from another post that this is a continuatiuon of another post related to gesture started by Fred G., and which I have not seen), I immediately thought of "gesturing", a recognised form of painting which Riopelle and Pollack and even some of my summer gallery contemporary artists have engaged in. I may not have the exact word for this approach in English. In French, here, they refer to this as "gesticulation", which derives from the verb gesticuler ("to gesture").</p>

<p>It is a method of expression, usually on canvas, that appears as a more or less free gesturing with the paint brush (creating curved movements, paint spots and the like). I am sure that if you are familiar with Riopelle, Borduas and Pollack, and several others, I probably don't need to describe the approach any further (I hope I am not mixing up Pollack with another, that might be and I do admit to occasionally confusing artists and styles).</p>

<p>Ernst Hass's colour photographs using blurs (by moving objects or by moving his Leicaflex during exposure) constitute I think a similar way of expressing colour, light and form via the photographed image, not unlike Riopelle and others who made use of this type of gesturing in painting.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Lacking the benefit of an upfront definition of "gesture" at the start of this post"</p>

<p>Paul, I have belatedly read your Univ. of Chicago text reference and general definitions, and some of Fred's and other's earlier remarks. Interesting stuff, and I am getting a broader picture than that which had supported my somewhat narrow "rant".</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Arthur, thank you. Now we're talking. I am familiar with gesture painting and with gesture drawing which are not the same and yet have some similarities as expression. These paintings were not only hand movements but were trying to capture feelings or express something beyond the borders of the canvas. Through physical movements and relationships of the colors and shapes. The energy of the hand movement, the feeling of the artist at that moment or drawn from an past or perceived experience. <br>

The example that Luis gave from Van Gogh is a classic example of what many are trying to achieve with there 'gesture drawings'.<br>

I have always considered drawing the best tool i have for learning photography. I find it so on many levels. Gesture drawing is one of the best ways i have found to exercise the muscles required for photography.</p>

<p>I think the Haas images are very good examples of one form of gesturing photographically.</p>

<p><br /></p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

Don, thanks for your further explanation. I understand what you're saying now and, in this new light of understanding, me stating that it seems

strange to say that ' none of them are really photographing the vase ' is indeed nothing but unnecessary semantic nitpicking, but this was never my intent

to do so if I hadn't misunderstood you in this way in the first place, which was clearly my mistake to begin with.

[aplumpton]

<p>Josh, you have provided a more in-depth description of gesturing in painting and drawing than I have. It is inspiring to think how the interaction of art and photography and the human psyche (or feelings and emotions) can have a considerable effect on us and our work. I think it is really to our great advantage to mix these things, to learn as much as possible about art and other art-based activities (architecure, music, ...) of expression, as they can influence us and our photography. Thinking out of the box, as an expression goes. I think we too often simply respond passively to a scene or object to be photographed, rather than impose upon it our own feelings or perceptions and compositions.</p>

<p>Not too relateed, but I remember an adult drawing class at our national museum of fine arts a few years ago in which the prof (from the local university) gave each of us a cloth bag filled with all sorts of things, inuding glass beads, small bits of wood, metal objects, and so on. We were asked to draw what we felt without looking into the bag. Another was to take a drawing we had made, or any photograph, and to enlarge it many times via a Xerox machine, and re-interpret it. I guess that part of these lessons was to interpret things differently from what they are, to form a gesture. </p>

[don_e]

<p>Fred wrote: "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."</p>

<p>You were not aware my examples were illustrations, 'hypotheticals? You thought I was taking examples from photographic practice in the actual world? It did not occur to you that the examples were made up for the purpose of illustration.<br>

***</p>

<p>There is the interesting facility of some to read: photographing the real vase, when what is clearly written is: really photographing the vase. Imo, this facility is due to operating with one's ideological filter's gain turned up way too high, and possibly thinking it is a bs filter, but it is just feedback.<br>

***</p>

<p>So, in order to leave this thread with at least a minimum of grace, I have to say it was all a misunderstanding.</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>"Can you imagine Van Gogh or Da Vinci or Picasso talking of gesture?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can imagine a <a href="

talking about gesture. I also can imagine Maradonna being the greater Artist compared to Van Gogh and Picasso. In the very beginning of this thread I quoted HCB's concept of " the decisive moment ".</p>

<p>So to the question what is gesture ? >> The answer may very well be in " the decisive moment " : <em>" It is putting one's head, one's eye, and one's heart on the same axis. "</em></p>

<p>A soccer legend and one of history's great photographers seem to have a lot in common.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Looking for reading material related to the thread, I came across this:</p>

 

 

 

<h1 >Migrations of Gesture <em >by <a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Carrie+Noland">Carrie Noland</a> (Editor), <a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Sally+Ann+Ness">Sally Ann Ness</a> (Editor)</em></h1>

 

 

<h3>Synopsis</h3>

<p>Derived from the Latin verb “gerere”-to carry, act, or do-“gesture” has accrued critical currency but has remained undertheorized. Migrations of Gesture addresses this absence and provides a complex theory on the value of gesture for understanding human sign production. <br /> <br /> Gestures migrate from body to body, from one medium to another, and between cultural contexts. Juxtaposing distinct approaches to gesture in order to explore the ways in which they at once shape and are influenced by culture, the contributors examine the works of writers Henri Michaux and Stéphane Mallarmé, photographers Henri Cartier-Bresson and Robert Frank, and filmmakers Hou Hsiao-Hsien and Martin Arnold, along with cultural practices such as gang walking, ballet, and classical Indian dance. The authors move deftly between an organic, phenomenal appreciation of human expression and a historicist, semiotic understanding of how the “human” is itself created through gestural routines.<br /> <br /> Contributors: Mark Franko, U of California, Santa Cruz; Ketu H. Katrak, U of California, Irvine; Akira Mizuta Lippit, U of Southern California; Susan A. Phillips, Pitzer College; Deidre Sklar; Lesley Stern, U of California, San Diego; Blake Stimson, U of California, Davis.<br /> Carrie Noland is associate professor of French literature and critical theory at the University of California, Irvine.<br /> <br /> Sally Ann Ness is professor of anthropology at University of California, Riverside.</p>

<p> </p>