Gesture

[luis_g]

<p>For the record, this is where this interrogator got "the real vase":</p>

<p>Don wrote: "The subject is real already. It is not the (imaginary) "subject". It is the real subject which gestures and communicates to the photographer."</p>

<p>The vase was trotted out as the ubiquitous hypothetical, and automatically "the real subject" = "the real vase". I made a mistake including 'photographing' within the quote marks.</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>Don E...would you tentatively agree that "memes" and "gestures" function in similar ways?</p>

<p>I hope someone will "photograph" or photograph Luis's ubiquitous hypothetical trotting vase.</p>

[jtk]

<p>...and... to the degree that a gesture (as in a photograph) conveys a meme, does that make it more like a virus than interpersonal communication ?</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><!--StartFragment--><i>Meme</i>. Very significant. Thanks, John.<br /> <br /> When he wasn't spinning around in circles, Plato was one of the first to work with the idea of <i>mimesis</i>, from which <i>meme</i> derives.<br /> <br /> It works on several levels in Greek philosophy, all pertinent to this discussion and others about creativity those in this forum have had recently.<br /> <br /> Plato was pretty down on artists, but he did recognize in art at least one significant thing: <em>seduction</em>.<br /> <br /> By imitation (<em>mimesis</em>) of nature, and with inspiration (divine madness) the artist seduces but is not after Truth. I'm kind of glad Plato's artist doesn't attain the kind of truth Plato held in such esteem, because that Truth could only be achieved through Knowledge and Wisdom.<br /> <br /> Imitation is related to representation is related to mimicry is related to mime is related to gesture . . . <em>mimesis</em>.<br /> <br /> On the wall of Plato's (allegory of the) cave, the men see only shadows, caused by the light of the fire behind them. They see only a representation of reality . . . not reality itself. So Plato was upset with the artist for being removed from reality. Art was a mere representation of reality.<br /> <br /> Aristotle, on the other hand, had a better grasp on the significance of art. He knew that the viewer (audience in his case, because he twas talking about tragedy here) identified with the work of art because of its mimetic function, the empathy, the response to what the actors/characters feel. Art "represented" for Aristotle but not in the shadowy way it did for Plato. Art, for Aristotle, was enlightening.<br /> <br /> Two definitions of <em>represent</em> that should sound vaguely familiar to the definitions of <em>gesture</em> we've been working with:<br /> <br /> to set forth or describe as having a particular character ("The article represented the dictator as a benevolent despot.")<br /> <br /> to set forth clearly or earnestly with a view to influencing . . . ("He represented to potential clients that his company was solvent.")<br /> <br /> Not like a virus . . . like an offering. <!--EndFragment--></p>

[don_e]

<p>I'm the wrong person to ask, John, because I do not understand "gesture". I tried to approximate it in this thread with my own practice, but it is awkward, and I would not use it otherwise. But it seems a useful term for critics and theorists, and those photographers who are interested in theory and critique. I don't know whether an image can be said to be a meme (or for that matter, the written word). Memes by definition seem to appear spontaneously and universally in a culture, depending on the vectors of transmission available. So, a meme might not have a single source or origin. As I understand it, something becomes a meme when the time and circumstances are ripe for it.</p>

<p>Do you remember when people would commonly say "I like it", rather than "I'm liking it"? When did people begin using the gerund verb form? Was it memetically transmitted? What does it imply, if anything?</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>'because I do not understand "gesture"<br>

Nothing to understand.<br>

Cloak it in a rainbow of colours,cloak it in language of language.<br>

But really it is a simple gesture of commincation...</p>

<div></div>

[inoneeye]

<p>Arthur, good to hear your last thoughts. I second the nod to Pauls link. I find your drawing class memories very related to this topic. Drawing for me has been a touchstone and essential tool. Gesture drawing from a moving model in particular.<br>

Your word passively in particular i find stimulating. - but i hear passive vs action. I think i grasp the spirit of your usage in your context. I neither agree or disagree and i agree and disagree with the way i read it. I think it is good to have the ability to be proactive in our image captures. Even if i choose not to use the ability it resides in my lack of action. I also have found many striking images that were likely captured with a bare minimum of action. I use a bare minimum when i am street shooting. I personally lean into the active approach when possible, as I think you were suggesting. As I mentioned before with Blossfeldt (thanks Luis) I find his collection inspirational. I would understand someone wishing to jump in here and argue the degree of passivity but i am only using Blossfeldt as someone I believe took a more clinical approach than i tend to use. </p>

<p>John, interesting new word for me. I'll try not to abuse it. </p>

<p>As I was reading the last comments of everyone i realized how unspoken gestures are common and often ripe in these forums.(i am not making a gesture to anyone in particular to say that). I was simply thinking of how some people know others much better than i might and i sense that there are many private gestures being passed as well as many blatant,public easily perceived gestures. Gestures of anger, frustration, respect, reconciliation...</p>

 

[inoneeye]

<p>Allen, i find it to be most often (and in the context of photography) a language within a language. </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Very true, Josh.</p>

[don_e]

<p>"But really it [gesture] is a simple gesture of commincation..."</p>

<p>That's an explanation that doesn't explain anything.</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>To add to that thought non verbal comminication is often the most powerful form of communication...hence the power of a still photograph which reaches deeper than mere words can achieve. It freezes that body language, giving time to comprehend and contemplate to be able to feel and see deeper.<br>

You have some strong creative images in your portfolio,Josh.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"But really it [gesture] is a simple gesture of commincation..."That's an explanation that doesn't explain anything.</p>

<p>A gesture is a form of communication, Don. What else do you think it could be?</p>

<p> A burger in a bun)</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>I apologise for that last remark, Don.</p>

[don_e]

<p>I don't need a definition -- I've got a dictionary -- but an explanation of "gesture" in terms of photography. I understand what Arthur means by it in terms of brushwork: "a method of expression" -- expressive brushwork, loading a bristle brush of chosen size and shape with thick opaque paint and medium of choice and making the stroke, for example. And each stroke is a sail on a ship, say, in a seascape. And it just looks and feels "right". But I don't understand "gesture" as it is used here regarding photography.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>" but an explanation of "gesture" in terms of photography"</p>

<p>The key is in the dictionary definition.</p>

<p>It's about the communication between the photographer and subject. Gestures, non verbal communication, are a body language....both the photographer and subject are communicating. Like verbal communication the reaction to that conversation very much depends on what is being communicated by both parties.</p>

[don_e]

<p>"The key is in the dictionary definition."</p>

<p>All gesturing is related to the definition. But words don't come with a definition inscribed on them from on high. Their meaning is in their usage. So a 'mouse gesture' and an 'obscene gesture' are related to the definition, but pointing to one usage doesn't explain the other. All we know is they are both gestures as defined.</p>

<p>When you first encountered the phrase "mouse gesture", what did you imagine it meant? If you design sw interfaces, you might have instantly understood what it means, but otherwise?</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>John Kelly wrote: I hope someone will "photograph" or photograph Luis's ubiquitous hypothetical trotting vase.</p>

<p> I hope so too, and can we make that "really" photograph/"photograph" the ff-ing vase? And, hey, I don't own that vase.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Don wrote: "I don't understand "gesture" as it is used here regarding photography."</p>

<p> Gesture in photographic terms? Let's look at a specific picture, one that is well-known.</p>

<p>http://pausetobegin.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/newman.jpg</p>

<p>As everyone here must know, Mr. Newman knew going in about his subject, the industrialist Mr. Krupp using slave labor during WWII. Here, he carefully, expertly, knowingly and deliberately the available tools of a photographer to portray him as the embodiment of Evil. The lighting is ghoul lighting. The color temp gives the skin the color of a corpse. The lightbulb elongation of the skull/ head, the Simon LeGree hand gesture, the oppressive lintels (he had moved into place) in the background. The place he chose to set up the camera, the lens used, focus, DOF, exposure, film, background, framing, etc every decision Mr. Newman made is gestural and towards a specific message about what Krupp did, what a monster Newman thought he was, and how we must never forget. And it communicated, too. When Krupp got hold of some of Newman's Polaroids, he had him thrown out of Germany.</p>

<p> Don, does this help to clarify gesture in photography?</p>

<p> </p>

[don_e]

<p>Yes, and thanks, Luis. I didn't know all that had a term of art. It may be analogous to a phrase I use: photographs that are systems of signs.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>"... a term of art" ?</p>

<p>Can't reply to that. I very deliberately left the a-word out of that post.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_e]

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_art">Term of Art</a><br>

"Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of a field, the nomenclature. These terms have specific definitions within the field, which is not necessarily the same as their meaning in common use. Jargon is similar, but more informal in definition and use..."</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Ah...never heard that before. Thanks, Don.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>' Mr. Newman knew going in about his subject, the industrialist Mr. Krupp using slave labor during WWII. Here, he carefully, expertly, knowingly and deliberately the available tools of a photographer to portray him as the embodiment of Evil."</p>

<p>Non verbal communication. </p>

<p>The one finger salute comes to mind.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_e]

<p>I started this thread about gesture because of Fred's use, so I would ask Fred whether there is anything he'd like to add to or modify Luis' explanation.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_e]

<p>Fred, the reason I'm asking is in your first post the gestures of the subject is foremost, and then an "also" that the photographer can gesture, and also that the photograph itself can be said ("somewhat metaphorically") to be a gesture. But when I replied ""Gesture" of the subject, the gesture(s) in the frame", you replied that you did not understand my response.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><!--StartFragment-->I just came from a performance of Ravel's <em>Valses nobles et sentimentales</em> (1911) and <em>La Valse</em> (1920). The conductor, Michael Tilson Thomas, began the afternoon talking briefly about the waltz as such a gestural musical form. He used terms for the waltz such as sentimental, flirtatious, and whimsical. (By the way, it's coincidence. I doubt he reads PN.) He talked about how the earlier piece incorporates those typical gestures of the waltz. <br /> <br /> He then talked about how the second piece was Ravel's gesture to Austria, where the waltz had originally become so popular. By 1920, waltzing Vienna was no longer seen as flirtatious and whimsical. <em>La Valse</em> takes the waltz to the extreme of obsession, control, and over-the-top power . . . incessant repetition and rhythmic compulsivity. It starts out with a drum solo, almost a precursor to the famous "Jaws" music, but in a haunting 1-2-3 waltz rhythm. As Tilson Thomas put it, "<em>La Valse</em> became a bitter and ferocious fantasy, a terrifying tone poem that helped define a new language of musical nightmare." La Valse is a gesture to what Austria had become. This secondary gesture by Ravel utilizes the ingrained familiarity with the more benign and sweet gestures of Austrian waltzes to make its demonic statement so moving and effective.<br /> <br /> Of course, in order to conduct the orchestra, Tilson Thomas used . . . gestures.<br /> <br /> There's not a single meaning here and, as has been discussed, no dictionary is really going to get it.<br /> <br /> The distinction between sign language and mime helps. They are both dependent on gestures. But a sign has more of a one-to-one, fixed representational meaning. Like a word or a number. A gesture can be just that, a substitute for a word or phrase, with a fairly fixed meaning. A mime, on the other hand, uses gestures more loosely and holistically, more contextually, expressively, and in conjunction with other tools, often including lighting, makeup, etc. It's less clear that a mime's gesture means exactly THIS or THAT, as compared to the gestures of a sign language interpreter. Yet a mime communicates a lot with his gestures, and generally part of that communication has more to do with feelings and effect than with language <em>per se</em>.<br /> <br /> Later in the thread, John's use of the word <em>meme</em> (related to mime) got me to thinking about "representation" (since that's contained in the original Greek, <em>mimesis</em>). We've often talked in these forums about whether or not photography "represents" reality or even "represents" the individual things in the world that are its subjects. Well, yes. And more.<br /> <br /> Sometimes photography really does represent to us the world, as in good photojournalism, documentary, and as a recording medium. <br /> <br /> Beyond that, photography can represent in a less exacting way, with the desire to create an effect. I might <em>represent</em> to you that my piano is in mint condition. When I use "represent" that way, it's more like the gesture of the mime than that of the sign language interpreter. I'm not showing you a picture of the piano as a representation of it. I am using words and attitude to "represent" not the piano but something significant about the piano. What's important is the effect that will have on you. I want you to believe me and I probably want you to buy it. So I make that kind of representation. That kind of representation is more than a copy. It can be a revelation. In the same way, so can a gesture, photographically or otherwise. Part of the gesture is so that you will understand. But more of it is so that you may empathize, be moved, perhaps enlightened, and feel effects.<br /> <!--EndFragment--></p>