Details, photography and the power of less

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I'm for the second (uncropped/less cropped) version partly because it deals with a concept that intrigues me and partly because I prefer it as an image. It is more memorable.</p>

<p>The first is cropped to make a solid image but it strongly reminds me of a fairly stereotypical grave stone and photographer (implied by the shadow) style of picture.</p>

<p>The second one takes the viewer on a conceptual or mental journey and much of what we "see" is in our minds and going on outside the picture, there is an interesting cleverness invested in having the woman looking out to the right beyond the edge of the picture, at what we cannot tell, life, death, her kids, a clock on the town hall, who knows?</p>

<p>and light puts her in the grave.</p>

<p>All in all a much more interesting picture - Clive </p>

[george_elsasser]

<p>Great read :o) and many responses I find right on target for me, especially ones highlighting the fact both approaches are equally valid, equally important, both can be quite enjoyable to see in photographs. Obviously the possible meanings, implications, stories can open up more as the view does, I think for today anyway. Everything in my work or at least the way I interact with mine (and others) is constantly changing.<br>

<br /> I would describe my longest running body of work primarily as isolated urban landscapes and as the years have progressed I have generally gone from tighter views to larger views. I am not married to either one but I find the larger the view (currently) the harder it is for me to make an interesting photograph due to the fact I have now chosen to include so much information. I find including a great deal of information a fantastic challenge (more difficult- maybe?).<br>

<br /> Interestingly, I find many times in the best of my work (whether a tight or larger view) its seems for me anyway a higher mind or greater force than me is orchestrating things (my arrival at a certain place at a certain time and so forth). My job is to show up, follow my intuition or queit mind, be open and work to make competent or interesting images (base hits if I may) and the best ones will show up when it is their time to.<br>

<br /> An example of a tighter view early in my work is here: <a href="http://george-elsasser.blogspot.com/2009/10/road-and-sky.html"> http://george-elsasser.blogspot.com/2009/10/road-and-sky.html</a> <br /> An example of a wider view w people in my current work is here: <a href="http://george-elsasser.blogspot.com/2009/11/book-cover-image-cycle.html"> http://george-elsasser.blogspot.com/2009/11/book-cover-image-cycle.html </a></p>

[aplumpton]

<p><!--StartFragment--><br>

"One could easily say, and I wouldn't argue, that this relationship (<em>Fred,</em> <em>speaking to the image of more restricted field</em>) gains power because it comes in a more sparse photo. I guess it gets back to Julie's question of what's "more" and what's "less."" (Fred)</p>

<p>Fred-</p>

<p>I agree, and if we want to make an analogy with current affairs, that type of imagery may be similar to a well-known contemporary verbal expression "Yes, we can", which does not need to reflect on everything to make its point, but which says everything it needs to. Some image details are able to do that to varying degrees of success, which probably supposes a certain familarity of the viewer with the subject or theme or experience.</p>

<p>Luis-</p>

<p>You have made some interesting observations (like the one Fred made, but with a different result in terms of effect or appreciation). While perhaps implying the limited force of my tighter shot, your observations of smaller details of a tighter shot (the one in question, or any other) may suggest that the power of less may not be working so well if the limited subject does not manifest well its intentions or impact. To quote Fred's comment, "Visual elements seem to strike us visually and emotionally and seem also to mean something."</p>

<p>"In terms of magnitude of overall strength, for me, the "less" slightly edges the "more" out. In terms of amplitude, it's the other way around, which is why I would rather live with the latter." (Luis)</p>

<p>Luis- I am trying to better understand your comment. If we plot "image perceived impact" against something like "durability of the perception", we might have a curve or histogram in which your appreciation might show a high but narrow peak of overall strength for the detail image, but a larger area and broader but lower curve signifying the "amplitude" of the appreciation (or durability of the perception), as you seem to have felt with the large image. If so, that is is an interesting way of seeing things, albeit a bit quantitative.</p>

<p><!--StartFragment--><br>

"It brings up an interesting side point.<br>

Are we after the better picture (the one that appeals more) or the picture that best expresses what we want?" (Fred)</p>

<p>Fred- I think that your point is really very central to any discussion of comparative images. Altough I haven't seen it yet, a hypothetical image of the Half Dome as an abstract image (with, say, specific color playing the role of highlights, and so on) may cause me to react even more favorably to the subject than Ansel Adam's famous (unique, and masterfully crafted) photograph. The Adam's image probably works splendidly for many others, which simply brings us back to the question of intention of the photographer and the question of his and the viewer's taste.</p>

<p>Wouter and Clive-</p>

<p>Your comments and thoughtful analyses of the examples, and particularly of the question of the post as much as any specific examples, are very interesting. Some might think that the larger picture tells all, and you have questioned that. Is it possible that the larger picture says too much and that the smaller detail provides more impact by not saying everything (although it may seem cliché like another shadow of the photographer - although in fact it is not the photographer in view of the angle of vision)? But the larger picture probably does not say everything and maybe the smaller picture does not communicate anything specific, or perhaps it does?</p>

<p>What is probably important is the strength of the image, of the message. A larger view does not necessarily mean more, or a smaller view less. George shows an interesting and attractive tightly cropped image (the B&W one) of a swimming pool ladder, but which also can pose the question of the completeness of the message of the image. I find it more interesting, however, than the busier people shots in larger views that he also showed. Is this a subjective reaction to otherwise interesting images or does it mean that larger views have many elements that we may or may not perceive, or at least perceive in the manner the author wished? </p>

<p>It is often a question of taste. The question of big versus small is complicated by that; the perceived power of the image, big or small, may be different than the actual effectiveness of the aesthetic elements. Does the viewer want to accept the game of a truncated image statement that may or may not be as easy to consider or as powerful as the equally brief statement "Yes we can"? Or does he need all the dots to be crossed?</p>

 

<!--EndFragment-->

 

<!--StartFragment--> <!--EndFragment--> <!--StartFragment-->

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>There's no more or less just if the photo works. <br>

<br>

I sort of feel guilty i have not written a ten page essay but i could not think of anything else of relevance to say.</p>

<p>Sorry if it offends.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Hi Allan,</p>

<p>I for one see absolutely no offence caused by your considering philosophy of photograhy and the creation of images in the simple and uncomplicated terms you state. Most people appreciate art in the same manner. Enjoy. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph Gibson and Michael Kenna excel at images of restricted content, often preferring or concentrating on details from much larger scenes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But this is what every photographer can't escape to excel at, from the photographer photographing the grand canyon to the one photographing a small piece of rock in it, they both - <em>we</em> <em>all</em> - take <em>something</em> out of anything and restrict content. So the quantitative visual detail that you're concentrating on as being essential to the qualitative specifics and character of both Gibson's and Kenna's work for example ( but also applicable to every other photographer working with creative intent ), I take to be more a quality because of a conceptually conceived "detail of seeing" first, and which is only thereafter attained by visualising it through the language of photography, and this being a literal visual detail of something or not I see as irrelevant to the question of the image's completion or not.<br>

I would say that completion of the image ( the question of the "more" vs the "less", both by viewer and photographer ) is achieved, not when there is nothing more to be added, but when there's nothing more to be taken away. It is this what is responded to and what makes <em>that </em>photographers work <em>his</em> and not someone else's, or what makes that photograph <em>this </em>way, and not any other.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Phylo-</p>

<p>In advocating the approach of photography as being particularly suited to images of lesser content (in relative physical terms, not in terms of the message communicated), I am not ignoring that images of greater content (your Grand Canyon example) should be governed by the same consideration of what is needed and what is not needed. This subjective decision is part of what makes a great image, or not.</p>

<p>It is also relative to the subject. Photographing at very small scale an entire ant colony is not a photograph of detail, although the detail of an ant carrying a load of some material within that community is, and that might even better communicate what the photographer wanted to show.</p>

<p>Photography has often been more concerned with the bigger picture, of nature and of human activity. Obviously this is not unique to photography but is also found in cinema and painted art, and in writing. The photography of Gibson and Kenna, for example, allows us to reflect on the power or impact of details, and what I propose is an apt role of photography, the sometimes strong impact of "less" rather than "more". Both the smaller picture and the larger can be judged by an appreciation of what is needed and what is not needed.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur--</p>

<p>My conclusion is that "less is more" is both true and false. Same for "more is more." For me, there is no such generic statement that covers photography <em>per se</em>. It depends on the photograph and what the photographer is doing.</p>

<p>A particular photographer might make great strides in exploring the "less is more" maxim in his photographs. As is being stated, bodies of work might be devoted to it. But they won't be better than bodies of work equally well photographed that explore "more is more." They will just be different. Photography doesn't seem particularly suited to one or the other.</p>

<p>"Yes we can" is a sound bite. I'm not looking to make photographs that are sound bites. Neither do I think are most good photographers who photograph detail. Sound bites (even ones used by guys I like) are superficial and pretty much designed to reach an audience one knows will not penetrate something deeply. A sound bite is usually <em>merely</em> catchy. A sound bite is infective, but usually doesn't accomplish much that is of substance. Good "detail" photographs are not often as shallow as sound bites, though some may be so intentionally.</p>

<p>Mozart would likely have considered many of Tchaikovsky's flourishes "unnecessary." That would have been Mozart's loss. (By the way, I like Mozart and Tchaikovsky equally well and don't think one is using music more suitably than another.) Fortunately for us, though Tchaikovsky idolized Mozart's music, he was able to give the world something different and just as wonderful. After Tchaikovsky, music did not keep growing larger and larger, with more and more flourishes. Some Debussy is much sparser as are some modern composers like Phillip Glass and Arvo Pärt.</p>

<p>Photography will have such ebbs and flows of "less is more" and "more and more." I think it will depend more on the times and the particular photographers than it will on the nature of photography.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Arthur, I still don't see why you would consider the photography of Gibson to be any more about details, photographically, then your own <em>uncropped</em> picture here is a photographic detail, one out of a much larger scene.It's not the power or impact of details that makes Gibson's work but it's the power of abstraction in it. Power of abstraction which is attained by "seeing what others don't see" in looking at things out there, things for everyone to see, differently. <br /> It's not attained only by zooming in or cropping out a detail, like in your own example, which starts from a fixed static visual referencepoint, that of the uncropped image. The cropped image then becomes "less" visually, which is then questioned and conceptualised as perhaps being "more" for it being a detail, and this only in retrospect to the uncropped version. <br /> You would have to take an uncropped Gibson photograph, and then crop a visual detail out of it, just like you did in your own examples, starting from a fixed point of reference, because now you're comparing something starting conceptually to something starting visually and conclude that the power of the concept of abstraction is the same as that of cropping out a detail ( which is what all photographers do anyway when pointing their camera ). I hope you understand what I'm getting at here and why I'm getting at it, because I think the premise of your post mixes up two different aspects to arrive at the same conclusions in both of them.<br /> I also see no real basis to consider that photography has historically always been about the larger, wider view. Atget >.....>.....></p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>it seems to me that to answer this forum question you need to account for the photographer's intent. What he/she is trying to convey and their ability to creatively express that intent. One can express much with a word, or two, and one can equally express too much, like flogging a dead horse (pardon the metaphor), and yet express no more that those few words.<br>

I've often found innuendos or suggestive metaphors act like subliminal messages filtered and understood instinctively by the viewed. That's the 'significant power' of a photo as I see it</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong> Luis- I am trying to better understand your comment."</p>

<p> In this case, for me, the simpler picture yields what it has in a brief time. I wouldn't say the same for Gibson or Kenna's pictures.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think something important here, and I gather it's at least part of what Luis is getting at, is initial impact vs. staying and growing power. Take PN thumbnails, for example, which is what we are often exposed to first on the Internet. Certain photos have a much more immediate impact, a "wow" factor if you will. But that's all they have -- kind of like a sound bite. Some photos nurture the viewer and allow the viewer to nurture the photo. They age well, they reveal more over time. In this day and age, viewers often don't have the time for that. But, when I do take the time, <em>with a good photo</em>, I am rewarded with more every time I look at it.</p>

<p>Many of the suggestions I see made in the critique forums on PN are making photos have more immediate impact and often losing significant subtleties, because people are in a rush and they want everything to be as clear as can be as soon as can be. Immediate coherence and clarity can be good things . . . or not.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I think Fred's point has a lot of truth (not only for photography, but for many arts - countless pieces of music have grown on me rather than blown me away the first time). The immediate "wow"-factor can be good too, but as many times, it comes down to the intent. A billboard or newspaper picture should have this wow-factor, while most of the documentary style photos in National Geographic demand a 3rd, 4th and 5th look to catch all the story-telling elements.</p>

<p>A bit to further on my initial comments on the 2 pictures the discussion started with; as I said, the "close up" photo does not tell me the same story as the "zoomed out" one. When I went through the newer reactions in this thread, especially Phylo's, something dawned on me: in order to have a "simpler" picture tell a story, wouldn't one have to rely more on strong symbols, famous landmarks etc.? Items that trigger a "predictable" reaction in most of the audience? In other words, in order to simplify, isn't there a point where you must rely on your audience to pick up on your intent rather than trying to make it a self-contained message?</p>

[jtk]

<p>Seems to me there's a lot of rationalization going on in support of the scattered image.</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with rationalization, but how does that relate to photography?</p>

<p>The evidence in these responses seems that the "better" photo requires a lot of explanation. The condensed shot, with the disturbing bit of bench, doesn't. One is visually stronger than the other.</p>

<p>The scattered image is more attractive, certainly. fwiw. </p>

<p>Was relative attractiveness Arthur's concern in posting the two images?</p>

<p>Is strong good? Van Gogh evidently thought so. Can you think of many painters whose work requires windy explanations? </p>

<p><em>"... in order to have a "simpler" picture tell a story, wouldn't one have to rely more on strong symbols, famous landmarks etc.? "</em> - Wouter</p>

<p>answer: no, not unless one is into complex symbolgy, famous landmarks etc. Consider Japanese brush painting, for example. Or Edward Weston. Or anybody's portraits or nudes.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Seems to me there's a lot of rationalization going on in support of the scattered image.</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with rationalization, but how does that relate to photography?</p>

<p>The evidence in these responses seems that the "better" photo requires a lot of explanation. The condensed shot, with the disturbing bit of bench, doesn't. One is visually stronger than the other.</p>

<p>The scattered image is more attractive, certainly. fwiw.</p>

<p>Was relative attractiveness Arthur's concern in posting the two images?</p>

<p>Is strong good? Van Gogh evidently thought so. Can you think of many painters whose work requires windy explanations?</p>

<p><em>"... in order to have a "simpler" picture tell a story, wouldn't one have to rely more on strong symbols, famous landmarks etc.? "</em> - Wouter</p>

<p>answer: no. Consider Japanese brush painting, for example. Or Edward Weston. Or anybody's portraits or nudes.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p><strong>"In order to have a "simpler" picture tell a story, wouldn't one have to rely more on strong symbols, famous landmarks etc.? Items that trigger a "predictable" reaction in most of the audience? In other words, in order to simplify, isn't there a point where you must rely on your audience to pick up on your intent rather than trying to make it a self-contained message?" (Wouter)</strong></p>

<p>Wouter-</p>

<p>I believe that may be the case at times, in view of the limited subject, but I disagree strongly that it is something that can be accepted as <em>characteristi</em>c of a detail photograph. In any case, the audience should normally be challenged by the image. An image that makes someone think is in my mind a good one. The contrary to that can <em>often</em> be only simple decoration.</p>

<p><strong>"Arthur, I still don't see why you would consider the photography of Gibson to be any more about details, photographically, then your own </strong><em><strong>uncropped</strong></em><strong> picture here is a photographic detail, one out of a much larger scene." (Phylo)</strong></p>

<p>Phylo-</p>

<p>We seem to be talking about different things here. I appreciate what you may be saying in regard to cropped images, from a prior image of a larger scene. However, my detail photograph is <strong>not</strong> that at all (you might want to look more carefully). No reframing of an easel projected image, or the use of a PS crop tool. When I said i reframed te image you may have understood that as cropping, but it was just a second visualisation of a scene and the search for a different meaning in its components, and how to capture them. <em>A different intent.</em> All detail images have to come from a larger scene, but not a simple cropping, or truncation, of another visualisation. There is little similarity between the intent of the two images.</p>

<p>I think however we are on the same wavelength about Gibson. His choice of details from an overall larger scene, with his choice of light and dark areas (chiaroscuro), the balance of masses and the use of sharp and out of focus details to provide abstract or enigmatic effect is consistent with the statement of Gilles Carle said (and no doubt of some other artists): <strong>"s</strong><strong>eeing things that others do not see</strong><strong>"</strong>. Both seek to provide more than just the details per se.</p>

<p><strong>"My conclusion is that "less is more" is both true and false. Same for "more is more." For me, there is no such generic statement that covers photography </strong><em><strong>per se</strong></em><strong>. It depends on the photograph and what the photographer is doing." (Fred)</strong></p>

<p>Fred-</p>

<p>That is not one place I wish to go. My OP was simply related to the power of details. "Seeing things that others fail to see" (partly because they are often looking only at the "big picture"). While I said the "power of less", it was in the sense of the detail and the above comment of Carle (and not that "more is less", "less is more", "more is more", or whatever. I find that sort of qualification unfruitful, and I expect you think so too). Baroque music will always be more embellished than 19th century music, Debussy more expressionistic or abstract than Copeland. More is not necessarily more, but the comparisons are meaningless, only valid when comparing composers of the same style I think.</p>

<p>Marcel Duchamp once said "I have forced myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste." Although sound bites or TV newsbites were in my mind when I suggested that a detail image (or in fact any image) does not need to spell out everything, this was based upon a firm belief that the viewer must add to the equation. We all know what Obama was getting at with his sound bite, but I admit my use of the analogy was not the best. It would be better to revert back to the concept of the photographer "seeing things that others do not see". In such case, the viewer receives a partial message, one which might yield more as he contemplates the detail scene (which may first appear like a "sound bite"), but which will reveal more as he continues to look at it.</p>

<p>I cannot speak for others, but that is a goal for me. I find the photography of expansive scenes often distracting in that sense (purporting often to simply fill one of photography's roles as that of a mirror, a too realistic purveyor of what is around us), and that details of life, and/or of the physical world , offer a particularly interesting potential for photographic art.</p>

<p>John-</p>

<p>I think you are absolutely right on in regard to your comment about symbols and the fact that detail images do not depend on them any more than the expansive views.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"It would be better to revert back to the concept of the photographer "seeing things that others do not see". In such case, the viewer receives a partial message, one which might yield more as he contemplates the detail scene (which may first appear like a "sound bite"), but which will reveal more as he continues to look at it." <strong>--Arthur</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It sounds to me like you may be describing the viewer seeing something the photographer did not present rather than the photographer seeing things others did not see.</p>

<p>I don't know Carle's work, but from the context of the quote in your original post, I didn't have the sense he was photographing detail because he wanted the viewer letting his mind wander in contemplation. I interpret him to mean that he is filling in with his camera what others likely would have missed, not that he is giving the viewer something partial to complete. I actually think Carle is talking about himself as photographer completing the picture for the viewer, not providing the viewer with raw materials to create "more". Naturally, the viewer is free to do what he wants in looking at a photo. But I sense that Carle is saying he, as cinematographer, is present with and aware of the details. This seems more about attention and awareness -- and it is there that I find the idea's significance -- than about stimulating viewers' imaginations.</p>

<p>I don't quite understand how you make the move from "seeing things that others do not see" or a more "detailed" view to "the power of less." I think Carle was trying to show people <em>more</em> than what they would otherwise have seen. I think he was talking about adding something to their experience (the details we often miss), not stripping the greater picture down so that the viewer can then build it back up again the way that viewer wants to.</p>

<p>He was showing his viewer something.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Ah Arhur, sorry my mistake ! I concentrated more on what was written then what was shown, and since you were talking at one point about the wider image as <em>the original image</em>, I thought of the tighter one as a crop.<br>

Now, in such direct comparison with each other, even though they are two different seperate uncropped photographs, they might as well be considered as coming from one and the same thing ( with the two sharing important content ).<br>

Meaning that if I would have to express my preference of one image over the other, I would find it difficult <em>not</em> contemplating either one of them as solely existing in function of the other, of their direct opposite. Suggesting to me that they aren' t that much two seperate things but rather two ways of looking at one thing.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>They aren't "looking at" "things." They are photographs.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Yes, they are <em>images</em>, thanks John for such deep inner factual knowledge and ever expansive corrections on "what things are", as always. But it <em>is</em> the "thing", "seen" by "looking at" which I was talking about. The "thing" that Arthur was questioning as being present or not ( "seeing <em>things</em> that others don't see" ) in either one of the images. Got "stuff " ?</p>

 

[clive_murray_white]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645"><em>John Kelly</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Dec 08, 2009; 12:06 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>They aren't "looking at" "things." They are photographs.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Although this is technically correct, and obviously stems from the Rene Magritte "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (This is not a pipe) painting, it is still as problematic as it was the day it was first pronounced. Of course a painting of a pipe is not a pipe, and a photo of a grave stone is not a gravestone.</p>

<p>At the time and ever since, artists, art writers and art historians get very excited about this statement of dubious usefullness.</p>

<p>I always imagine Magritte going home to his mother, she asks him, "What have you been up to lately then?", "Ah", replies Rene, "I've had a major breakthrough, I'll show it you." Rene produces <em>This is not a pipe.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Mother says almost in tears and very distressed says "Oh Rene what am I going to about you of course its a bloody pipe you idiot, what is it if its not a pipe"</p>

<p>Rene "Its a painting....of a pipe"</p>

<p>Mother "Durrrr, that's all I need, that's absolutely stupid, you'll be the death me, be bloody careful no one sees this, they could have you locked you up"</p>

<p>Although art got very excited by Magritte's perverse and possibly clever observation it is of no real consequence as people economically describe things depicted in art without always saying "painting of" or "photograph of".</p>

<p>Clive</p>

<p> </p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Arthur, I agree that details offer a lot of potential, and that it takes "seeing what most do not see". I'm not in photography all that long, but it sure made me look at things (including images) and see things differently. But I get a sense of "either/or" when you describe the less-detail images as "<em>purporting often to simply fill one of photography's roles as that of a mirror, a too realistic purveyor of what is around us</em>".</p>

<p>To me, that is just another, and equally valid, intent. Photography as a means to "capture the world as you perceive it" is to me as good a reason to take photos as it can be to show a detail, and extend a story on that. Sure, one of the styles may be more demanding on the viewer (extrapolating the message), but again, horses for courses, personal preferences etc. It depends strongly on what you want the image to do.<br>

The question I raised on symbols, by the way, is not far off from your link to soundbites, or at least I meant it as such. It is giving the viewer/audience a simple clue of what you want to say, a handle for them to open the door.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Clive, it was good to bring up Magritte...for me Van Gogh's work makes the "just a painting" sort of case even more strongly (his angle seemed to be "paint itself" rather than "just a painting" . Van Gogh was more visually concerned than Magritte, who seemed more into ideas IMO). The work of non-photographers has contributed as importantly to photography as most "popular" photographers, also IMO. For example, a case might be made for a parallel between John Cage's musical work and much of today's "street" photography.<br>

Phylo, Various viewpoints are expressed on this interesting thread. Many are by people who enjoy looking at ideas multiple ways. Consider Clive's post, for example.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I wouldn't want to short shrift what Magritte is saying. On the "semantic," level, I'm with Phylo and Clive. I think it's fine to say "an image (or a photo) 'looks at' something." I have no trouble understanding what that means and relating to it.</p>

<p>But, I don't think Magritte was talking about how we talk. I think Magritte was talking about what we see.</p>

<p>To illustrate, I'll copy and paste from an e-mail dialogue I had just yesterday with a non-photographer friend about portraits:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Friend:</em> I am always amazed at how photographs can generate two different looks. This photo of Nicholas Hoult from OUT is very like he was as a younger kid -- a very hard edged look, very "European". . .</p>

<p>http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/8700000/Nicholas-Hoult-in-OUT-Magazine-skins-8732256-800-534.jpg</p>

<p>This next photo, on the other hand, is a PR shot from his upcoming movie, A Single Man, with Colin Firth. Here he actually looks like the relaxed California college kid -- a kid who is straight, but also intense and fascinated by his literature professor:</p>

<p>http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3621359104/tt1315981</p>

<p><em>Me:</em> Yes. It's something very interesting about portraits. Many people look at portraits I've done and say they feel like I've really captured the essence of the person. Yet, like you've noticed, depending on decisions I make with the camera (never mind hair, clothes, and makeup), I can so affect how someone is going to read in a picture. That being said, I still feel like I do capture something true about my subjects, but I know there's an awful lot of me in them as well, and an awful lot of "photograph" in them, too. I often remind others that they are not looking at a person, they are looking at a photograph of a person, and that makes a big difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you have any doubts that it's not a bad idea to remind people now and then of the difference between a photograph and what the photograph is of, check out the Casual Conversations thread about whether photographs can glorify war. Never mind the answer to that question, which is being debated. Notice how many people can't help talking about whether or not the <em>soldiers</em> in some photographs being discussed were glorifying war, as if that were the question. There is much conflation between subject matter and photograph in that thread and I see it all the time in critiques here on PN. Also, check out the PN nudes section sometime, where the breasts of the model determine the quality of the photograph.</p>

[jtk]

<p> </p>

<p> "About" and the "stories" are secondary verbal responses that may not even be our own (someone may have told us what we're seeing, as on this thread).</p>

<p><strong>Fred</strong>, regarding the "glorify war" thread: you've forgotten that there are no photos. Nonetheless, images of war are in the minds of everybody who posted, just as surely as if the thread included photos. <em><strong>That's what photos ARE : images in our minds</strong>. </em></p>

<p>The "aboutness" or "story" in Arthur's photos has been repeated many times here in order to argue in favor<em> </em>of interpretation (verbal concensus) and <em>against</em> the direct responses of individuals. </p>

<p>Interestingly, the views of <strong>Arthur Plumpton</strong>, the man who made the photos, appear more individualistic than the concensus.</p>

<p><strong></strong><br>

Something like political correctness seems at play: ie Don't respond as an individual! This is the story! This is the subject!</p>

<p>Consistent with the rest of my upbringing, I was raised photographically to be responsible first for what I personally experience from a photo, only later to consider explanations. That leads to arguments and bumpy roads, of course, but nobody gets out of here alive.</p>

<p>Minor White taught the usefulness of "reading" photos...a standard "art appreciation" technique. However, he emphasized that a photo <strong>first</strong> consisted of each <strong>individual</strong> response to it. That's why he taught meditative techniques.</p>

<p>Is a verbal explanation the same as an individual response?</p>

<p><em> </em></p>