Is It A Photo?

[tomwatt]

<p>To come at this from a different direction (and yes, Fred, we do seem to follow similar tracks sometimes), that of when does something become purely a symbol?<br>

During an intro lecture to my drawing class, I went to the chalkboard, drew an octagon on a stick and asked what it was, and of course everyone answered "stop sign!" It seems to me that we 'see' what we 'know', and that the signs and symbols that are set in our mental lbrary form a resouce for us to frame and catalog our visual experiences.<br>

How much incidental information will cause something to cross from photographic image to sign/symbol? Where is the boundary? I think that may be the real question here.<br>

As a photographer, it may be that I am only shooting images without regard to 'named' subject matter (objects, people, recognizable subject matter), or I may be shooting product photography which requires not only that the named object/subject matter be recognizable, but also that it's desirable 'good' qualities show and any undesirable qualities do not. Or I may be shooting snapshots in which the symbol for 'family', 'friend', 'birthday cake', 'Christmas tree', etc. is recognizably imposed on the resulting image.<br>

If you look at "old master" works of art, you can see that many of them speak to the viewer on multiple levels - presenting a recognizable symbol, while offering an abstract visual design.<br>

I have to say that I'm not all that clear on where my thoughts are going for this kind of topic. It's one I've been chewing on for a couple of decades. How much information do I have to provide to convince the viewer that there is an 'ok-ness' to the work? What happens if some of the information is 'wrong'? What does the viewer think when presented with a contradiction? How much of a puzzle or problem can I present before the viewer rejects the problem and moves on?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Phylo, I too admire much of Gibson's work. He is an independent spirit. My abstraction reaction of "mechanical" was an automatic gut reaction influenced by my preference for greater degrees of abstraction than that, but I acknowledge the quality of that series.</p>

<p>Luis, thanks, that is an important revelation and a wonderful blending of two symbols into a national one. Flags and other national symbols are often very powerful and evocative.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Tom, what is the reaction of those to your octagon who had never seen a stop sign? Maybe those who had seen it are facing a paradigm they cannot escape from. In regard to your last paragraph I believe that all of that is OK. The intention of a great photograph is not to spell out everything for the viewer or even to do so in an "acceptable" visual way.</p>

<p>Probably an important quality of a great photograph or other work of art is <strong>enigma</strong>. Symbols can perhaps be useful in an image to provide some clue or direction in the interpretation of that enigma, but they may also be purposely misleading or contradictory. </p>

<p>Viewers that think long about a work are good compliments to the artist.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Arthur, as I mentioned, we 'see' what we 'know'... not a reference to the physical act of light-gathering by the eye, but the interpretation and 'naming' of what we see. Someone unfamiliar with stop signs but familiar with lollypops might conclude it was a slightly-dangerous lollypop. As I recall, aboriginal peoples in remote parts of the world do not recognize a photograph as anthing but a flat thing.<br>

There has to be enough familiar information offered to obtain a 'by-in' from the viewer, but experience and education (formal or not) have a big influence on where that blip on the sliding scale lies. I like to think of that as another item to tweak and adjust on the sliding scale of adjustments.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Tom, as I mentioned in another post a few days ago, 20% of the neural input into the visual cortex is coming from the eye. 80% is coming in from memory.</p>

[andrew_brown3]

<p>Hi,<br>

Is it a 'photo'? <br>

A 'photo' comes from 'drawing with light'-a photograph, chemical magic.<br>

So, if it was made with a film camera, yes, by definition.<br>

Digital imaging is made with little boxes of pixies who switch coloured lights on and off inside these boxes. The image is then transported inside an electric string to a much larger box, flat on the front where the coloured lights are spread out and flattened by bigger pixies. This is a technical explanation of digital imaging, and for a simpler instruction handbook, please email me-Professer Branestorm at the rest home dotty dotty.<br>

So, if it was made by a digital imager, no, by definition.<br>

If it's a Woodburytype I cannot help.</p>

<p>Andy.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Luis, yep. We're on the same sheet of music, I believe.<br>

Andrew B. So let me ask you... where is the photo? You've given a dictionary/textbook definition, true, but I think most of the folks on Pnet are at least passably acquainted with that... which led to the original question... is it a photo? Not referring to the physical substance, but to the location of that shifting boundary within the brain between object and image, symbol and image, etc.<br>

Where is the photo?<br>

And why would a Photo-gram/Ray-o-gram not be a photograph? It is made by literally drawing with light on the photographic paper.</p>

[marcaubin]

<p>"Without knowing how it was made" answers the question for me. "Photo" to me refers to a medium/technique used to produce an image. Therefore, all I can do is agree that it's a representation of a triangle.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><em>John O'Keefe-Odom , Nov 17, 2009; 04:49 p.m. Look at the image below. Without knowing how it was made, considering only what you see before you, would you consider it a "photo"? If not, then what would you name it, and why?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I looked up several different definitions of the word "photo" and "photograph" and it would appear that without knowing how the image was made, the question is unanswerable.<br>

Try wiki and answers dot com and see what I mean.<br>

Also, what's the point of this exercise?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"Also, what's the point of this exercise?" (Bill P.)</p>

<p>I guess the discussion related to symbolism provided some perhaps unanticipated and interesting responses. But, your question is pertinent, Bill. The computer screen image in any case does not permit an answer to the question of how the image was originally made, and the question of what constitutes a photo (as you and Fred have also addressed) is not answreed by the particular image of a black triangle.</p>

<p>Maybe John can elaborate more on his first post after the original thread. I have difficulty in seeing how it inter-relates with photographed text. Is it related to whether a photograph of text is a photograph, or simply a copy of text? In the nature of "Is this a pipe" of a well-known Belgian Surrealist.</p>

[andrew_brown3]

<p>Hi,<br>

I was probably being too facetious in my response above. As the pic below it was the underside of a ski-slope, and might have been a photograph, the image above called 'triangle' could be anything at all- a printed repro of a photo, a negative, a painting or whatever.<br>

So I call it for now a black triangle.<br>

Why? Well, we have no frame of reference to help us in defining it. We don't know the manner of it's making. We don't know if the maker intended for us to create our own definitions for it. We don't even know if it's a triangle as we are only calling it that because we then have created a hook to hang it on as a starting point for our thought processes about it. It might be a rectangular 3 dimensional object we are viewing from an odd angle, so to call it a triangle is an assumption.<br>

It's bit like a Rothko painting, where we might ask ourselves similar questions about the nature of what we are looking at; except that here we are faced with a textureless shape which won't give us any clue to it's nature.<br>

At least Rothko seem to offer the viewer 'something else' in looking into his paintings, whereas this 'triangle' says 'nothing more' to me.<br>

It is of course irrelevant if it's interesting of itself, which this isn't, as that wasn't the original posters question of us. We were asked if it could be considered a 'photo' and my post above explained how it might be so considered. If an image is made from the action of light onto a negative film or coated paper then it's probably a photograph; if not, it's not!</p>

<p>It's like defining a car is a small lorry if we think that digital images can be thought of as photographs.<br>

Andy.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>In which case, this entire website contains no photographs.</p>

[andrew_brown3]

<p>Hi,<br>

That's true. It contains 1000s of digitally rendered reproductions of photographs and digital images.</p>

<p>Andy. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>And we're off . . .</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Could someone please pass me the stick?<br>

I desire to beat the horse again, despite it's untimely passing.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>"Is it related to whether a photograph of text is a photograph, or simply a copy of text?"</p>

<p>Arthur, I think the answer to this is, "Yes." I was just curious about where the limit was; when does a symbol have more power as a symbol; when would a picture of a symbol stop being a picture, and function more as a symbol. I had come across the idea as I was making some prints of text.</p>

<p>Interestingly, someone said that the Triangle wasn't interesting? Over 300 views in less than three days; the same image garnered ratings ranging from 3 to 7, and some interesting feedback on the comments. I had initially posted the photo to the critique forum as a chuckle, and was surprised to have gotten this kind of answer.</p>

<p>Perhaps it helped that I put it in the "nudes" section; which might say something about the presence of context affecting how people define terms; but, I'm not so sure I'm sophisticated enough to sort out a refined answer on that one just yet.</p>

<p>I was just basically curious if people thought it was a photo. My opinions on it were pretty close to some of the others above; that is, I think the point about a photo containing something we recognize as being recorded (something realistic) is what gives it some of that "photo" quality, along with being recorded by light sensitive media in some way.</p>

<p>I thought some of the answer so far were interesting. Thanks.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>"If not, then what would you name it, and why?"</p>

<p>How is this much different than "what's your favorite color?"</p>

[tomwatt]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1727232">Thomas K</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"></a>, Nov 24, 2009; 02:24 p.m.</p>

 

<p>"If not, then what would you name it, and why?"<br>

How is this much different than "what's your favorite color?"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Spam is my favorite color. Pink, gelatinous mass, all a-quiver! In order to conform most closely to the original topic of this thread, I shall be forced to carve a large chunk of Spam into a politically-charged triangular shape.</p>

[larry_kincaid2]

<p>Can't tell. It's obviously upside down. </p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3797949"><em>Larry Kincaid</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Nov 24, 2009; 11:49 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Can't tell. It's obviously upside down.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>How did I miss that ?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>'considering only what i see before me' and 'without knowing how it was made' I see a black triangle and so thats also what I would call it.<br>

whether it's a photo or not isnt as important a question as HOW WAS IT MADE? Since that information is not available I cannot call it anything other than a black triangle. if you used a camera then its an edited photo if you created it in the absence of a camera by definition it cannot be. The term 'photography' implies the use of drawing with light through the use of a mechanical device capturing that light. as I see it thats the only criteria by which a definition can be applied</p>

[travvel]

<p>A photo: image reflected onto a negative and printed? I think its difficult to define what photograph means nowadays like art in general. For me its very diffiult to distiguish between art forms. However in this case as Art X puts it there should be a process involved or a discription of how the 'image' above came to be. It is possible to produce a photo that equates to the above image however this does not mean the said image is a photo...(going round in circles)<br>

In this case I believe no answer can be applied until further information is given..<br>

:)</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Thanks. <br>

And Larry, it's a mirror image of the original.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Just so there is no confusion I believe that anything except a unique, optically-produced image is a rendering. For example an image on a piece of film, made with a camera is a photograph. All other images are rendered in some way (including photographic duplicates if you need to quibble). The key term is "unique".<br>

AZ</p><div></div>

[alan_zinn]

<p>More dead horse flogging:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_and_Three_Chairs">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_and_Three_Chairs</a></p>