Square framing, centered subjects and symmetry in photography - the poor relatives?

[jtk]

<p><strong>Julie, your "leaky" metaphor serves beautifully IMO, but I'm not sure quite how you intended it.</strong> Your pilot-in-training learned the most significant of her skills using an absolutely "leaky" visual / kinesthetic / auditory field (a simulator and actual aircraft)...same as a painter or photographer (vs "graphic artist). </p>

<p>Premier photographers evade teaching jobs in colleges for the same heartfilled reasons premier painters, actors, and musicians do: they swim in freedom, which relates to "leaky." </p>

<p>And of course, "those that can, do" (re teaching vs the work): one might more logically seek mentoring by someone competent (the way many photographers do..), rather than having rules about proportions drummed into one's skull, like holy writ.</p>

<p>Granted, there have been a few important arts educators (think Man Ray, Minor White et al), but the proliferation of trite and hip that has always constituted 95% in MFA exhibitions proves good work, if present, grew up despite the "education" . Good work has nothing to do with CVs, but academies are built on them.</p>

<p>A photo's format remains a worthless abstraction, does nothing of importance until a particular photographer (eg Arthur) makes a decision...it has nothing to do with theory (IMO...of course :-) </p>

<p> </p>

[mizore]

<p>John Kelly, I think most teaching writers are not always that competent, but I'd put Joyce Carol Oates, John McPhee, and John Ashbery (in different genres) as among the best people writing today. Commercial isn't always good; academic isn't always literary. Defensiveness isn't always useful.</p>

<p>Julie, the point for the bird illustrators is that illustrations can show all the field marks very deliberately, condition of the photograph can blur these. A good photograph is not necessarily good information. </p>

<p>Admittedly this is far from the square we started with. The Hasselblad idea was that if one didn't compose to the square, one could crop (and the screen in my C/M has lines for 645 framing).</p>

<p>I don't think there are hard and fast lines between art photography and illustrative photography, but would suspect that illustrative photography centers or only slightly off-centers the subject.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>It is interesting I think how architecture and photography (and other forms of art) overlap in expression. In our town, several buildings were constructed with interiors containing "trompe-l'oeil" elements, false reproductions of classical architecture elements that fool the eye. Well, not quite,... and that is what can be appealing. High degrees of symmetry in a photo composition or in a painting or sculpture can be interesting, especially when offset by some incongruous element. The latter can often introduce an anomally or tenson in the "ensemble", which may make a point of some sort to the viewer. The use of multiple symmetry can also be effective, and possibly either oppressive or harmonious, depending upon the image and the photographer's intention.</p>

<p>These are but mind constructs at present, but I will look around for a few examples. I like the concept of broken symmetry and underlying symmetry in an asymetric image, and the opposite.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I am going to make two posts. This first one is a bit of a wild-hair in, riffing off of what Arthur has said above. The next post will be much more reasonable, so skip this one if you don't like to stretch your thinking.</p>

<p>Extracting from an article, found here, called <em><a href="http://www.brooklynrail.org/2009/03/express/experimental-geography-from-cultural-production-to-the-production-of-space">Experimental Geography: From Cultural Production to Production of Space</a></em> by Trevor Paglen:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A good geographer ... might use her discipline’s analytic axioms to approach the problem of "art" in a decidedly different way.<br>

Instead of asking "What is art?" or "Is this art successful?" a good geographer might ask questions along the lines of "How is this space called ‘art’ produced?" In other words, what are the specific historical, economic, cultural, and discursive conjunctions that come together to form something called "art" and, moreover, to produce a space that we colloquially know as an "art world"? The geographic question is not "What is art?" but "How is art?" From a critical geographic perspective, the notion of a free-standing work of art would be seen as the fetishistic effect of a production process. Instead of approaching art from the vantage point of a consumer, a critical geographer might reframe the question of art in terms of spatial practice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you do what he is suggesting? At least try? Stretch your idea of what/where/in-what-way the art frame happens? (What kind of artist <em>won't</em> try?)</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Second post -- coming back to earth ... I have what I think are some interesting examples of symmetry and framing to consider:</p>

<p>Two versions of Dawoud Bey's <em>Amishi</em> in which he uses frames within the overall frame to work with and/or break symmetry -- the symmetry of those multiple frames as well as the side-to-side symmetry of the figure broken by the four frames:<br>

<a href="http://collectionsonline.lacma.org/mwebcgi/mweb.exe?request=record;id=118587;type=101">http://collectionsonline.lacma.org/mwebcgi/mweb.exe?request=record;id=118587;type=101</a><br>

<a href="http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?pos=7&intObjectID=3960961&sid">http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?pos=7&intObjectID=3960961&sid</a>=<br>

Next, Nicholas Nixon's very well-know series on the Brown sisters. Each individual group portrait is interesting in its own right, but the effect of the series is much greater due in large part to the identical arrangement of the women -- which, when seen one after the other is a type of symmetry:<br>

<a href="http://www.zabriskiegallery.com/Nixon/TBS/nixonimages.htm">http://www.zabriskiegallery.com/Nixon/TBS/nixonimages.htm</a><br>

An obvious example of symmetry in a squarish format is Arbus's very famous photo of twins:<br>

<a href="http://www.heyhotshot.com/blog/images/arbus_twins.jpg">http://www.heyhotshot.com/blog/images/arbus_twins.jpg</a><br>

Two examples of gorgeous and subtle use of all kinds of symmetry/assymmetry in a squarish image are found in these two examples by Rafael Goldchain:<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/image/5014921264845046094/">http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/image/5014921264845046094/</a><br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/image/54548357121284668153939/">http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/image/54548357121284668153939/</a><br>

And one outstanding example of powerful use of the center in a square format; Peter Bock-Schroeder's <em>Samson and Delilah, Peru</em> (1956):<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/image/83156178568758370799/">http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/image/83156178568758370799/</a></p>

 

[sobeystudio]

<p>BILL-'Gimmicks will always come and go.<br>

Innovation comes and stays. That's the difference.'</p>

<p>You have to be joking. The square format has been a part of photography since 120 film was invented. Probably the most used format by studio photographers for a solid 25 years- think Bert Stern and Marilyn Monroe! I don't think you know what you are talking about. If you don't see the square in print, its because, as I stated much earlier, magazines and books are rectangles. There are bunches of photographers using the format still- Norman Jean Roy uses a Rollei twin lens. I used my fathers Mamiya flex on my travels through Europe. Mamiya, Hasselblad, Bronica, Rollei- still putting out the 6x6. I don't use it anymore, because I don't shoot film. As for innovation staying, I also don't use a very popular and useful innovation for decades on end- the enlarger. Another great innovation in photography- the brownie camera- I don't use one of those. How about the populist's innovation, Polaroid- gone with the wind. How about the most popular innovation- 35mm film. Haven't touched it in 5 years. Be careful about innovation being here to stay- it will be gone before you can blink.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3679363"><em>Martin Sobey</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 30, 2010; 08:53 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>BILL-'Gimmicks will always come and go.<br />Innovation comes and stays. That's the difference.'</em></p>

 

<p><em>You have to be joking..... I don't think you know what you are talking about.....</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Martin, that's a direct attack. I typically don't even bother addressing something that offensive, but let's give it a try this one time.<br>

To begin with, what's your training?<br>

My bio states mine, so believe me, I DO know what I'm talking about, and nowhere do I mention any comedic aspirations, so no, I'm not joking.<br>

You state that the square format was the format of choice for 25 years.<br>

Then you mention that it's NOT used due to magazine formats.<br>

The format is aesthetically unappealing.<br>

That's why you don't see it in print. Magazines are not square format because the format is unappealing.<br>

Otherwise, magazines would be square.<br>

Then where is it used, billboards? Television? Motion picture? Fashion magazines? Art galleries?<br>

Since the dawn of recorded history, man has expressed himself in either landscape or portrait aspect ratios. That's not years, decades or centuries, that's millennia.<br>

That's quite a difference from twenty five "solid" years, which, by the way, implies that it was the format of choice.<br>

It wasn't. It was preferred by some photographers because it provided plenty of cropping choices, etc.<br>

After looking at your photos here on P/N, it seems that even YOU don't use the square format.<br>

Your "Palm Beach" comp comes close at 614x720 pixels, but even that is not square.<br>

So tell me what art school teaches you things like this, and we'll take it from there, if you care to retract your " <em>I don't think you know what you are talking about....."</em> statement.</p>

<p>Bill P.<br>

<em></em></p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>The use of multiple symmetry can also be effective, and possibly either oppressive or harmonious, depending upon the image and the photographer's intention.<br /> These are but mind constructs at present, but I will look around for a few examples. I like the concept of broken symmetry and underlying symmetry in an asymetric image, and the opposite.- Arthur</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andreas Gursky's work immediately comes to mind :<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Chicago_Board_of_Trade_II.jpg">underlying symmetry in an asymetric image.</a> Also regarding symmetry in architecture, which is <a href="http://cfs3.tistory.com/upload_control/download.blog?fhandle=YmxvZzIyNzA2QGZzMy50aXN0b3J5LmNvbTovYXR0YWNoLzYvNjY2LmpwZw%3D%3D">manipulated into something even more symmetrical and "objective"</a>.<br /> <br /> Symmetry can be effective, in its objective'ness, it being "too clean", "too cold", "too neutral",...This can be mesmerising in a strange way when there's a symmetry of concept and execution ( throughout an entire building ) or throughout a body of work, l<a href="http://www.desordre.net/bloc/images/becher.jpg">ike that of Bernd / Hilla Becher</a>, essentially they made one same photograph every time again, with each one mirroring each other, being symmetrical in their cause.<br /> <br /> It's interesting to think about symmetry not only from the literal sense but also from the conceptual angle.</p>

<p>Julie's examples are also interesting, showing the distinctiveness of the square.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Symmetry of concept (thanks, Phylo) can also be accompanied by symmetry of context. It can tie into body of work.</p>

<p>I often find myself working in overarching symmetries/asymmetries over the course of several or several groups of photos. Some of my photos seem like reactions to previous ones. Sometimes there seems to be a forward trajectory through several successive photos, a conceptual asymmetry away from balance only evidenced in the latest few photos taken in context of each other. Sometimes, on the other hand, there's a response and adjustment suggesting balance over the course of a period of time. Color may beckon in response to several blacks and whites. A mood, atmosphere, ambiance seems worthy of getting explored deeper, into an asymmetry away from other moods. And sometimes the feeling of wanting to offset a certain mood that's been dominating in order to balance or at least answer it is overwhelming.</p>

<p>Conceptual symmetry/asymmetry . . . a symmetrical composition is sometimes born of the most imbalanced emotional state. A very inner imbalance may suggest or demand a symmetrical visual response. Asymmetrical compositions can be produced by very exacting and balanced minds (and hearts). Visual photographic symmetry can put me in touch with the imbalance of the world around me and imbalance in a photo can seem to right a dizzying world.</p>

<p>A square is not a judgment. It's geometry.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Symmetry and asymmetry. One example of what I was mentioning in my last post, albeit not an emotionally charged one (which I think is the better role for the play of the twoelements). Made in a small village restaurant terrace, while awaiting the garage verdict on the state of our broken down old car. Distractions at such time are good for the mind.</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>Bad title though (hardly an abstract) !</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>A very simple holiday snapshot, yet involving symmetrical and asymmetrical elements, as well as centered subjects.</p><div></div>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Conceptual symmetry/asymmetry . . . a symmetrical composition is sometimes born of the most imbalanced emotional state. A very inner imbalance may suggest or demand a symmetrical visual response. Asymmetrical compositions can be produced by very exacting and balanced minds (and hearts).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, like the photographer photogaphing his / her way out of it as well as into it ( "it" being the mental state ).<br>

There's the building or construction as architecture, and it may be symmetrical or not, but there's also the <em>architecture of the building</em>, like the architecture of the landscape, the architecture of the brain, the architecture of photography and of a body of work,...</p>

<p>The architecture of imagination even, which may be neither symmetrical nor assymetrical.</p>

 

[mizore]

<p>Julie, it looks like a good square is the sum of its rectangles.</p>

[sobeystudio]

<p>Bill- 'To begin with, what's your training?'</p>

<p>My bio doesn't state who I worked for, because my work stands for itself www.MartinSobey.com</p>

<p>If you must know I have over 8 years assisting world renowned photographers including some people you, obviously an industry insider, might know of: Mary Ellen Mark, Norman Jean Roy, Michel Comte, Diego Uchitel, Mark Abrahams, Ilan Rubin, Steven Hellerstein.... I also have shot a few campaigns and some people of note like Chuck Close, Hillary Clinton and Russel Simmons. My art is emerging too and I have done a few interviews lately with reputable organizations like the Discovery Channel and Wooster Collective. I also have art coming out in a book published by Rizzoli.</p>

<p>As for the square format in cameras that I was referring to in your previous comment, yes 25 years of solid use<em> is</em> a great amount of time, since the medium is only 175 years old. I'm sure sales of 6x6 format would confirm that. If we are talking about man's historical use of the rectangle, wherein "gimmick" and "innovation" is concerned- photography's existence is but a drop in the bucket compared to to "millenia" so we should probably be able to see that photography, too, will one day no longer be around and consider the whole medium as a "gimmick". Nice try though.</p>

<p>Both Jeff and I cited references to known photographers who used 6x6, and I might add very convincingly and in extremely popular work. More come to mind: Mary Ellen Mark, Diane Arbus, Francesco Scavullo.... I'm sure Hasselblad will gladly give you a list of the thousands of photographers who use(d) their cameras with great results. I say the format <strong><em>IS</em></strong> due to magazines and books, and I said <strong><em>I DID</em></strong> travel through Europe shooting with a Mamiyaflex. Did you actually read my post?</p>

<p>'So tell me what art school teaches you things like this, and we'll take it from there, if you care to retract your " <em>I don't think you know what you are talking about....."</em> statement'</p>

<p>I don't care to.</p>

[felixg]

<p>Julie: the application of critical geographic methods to art completes a circuit whose brokenness I've long felt. Thank you for the reference.<br>

I've already started a set of small visual projects triggered by Arthur's questions, so this thread has been pure pay dirt for me.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3679363"><em>Martin Sobey</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 30, 2010; 01:42 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>'So tell me what art school teaches you things like this, and we'll take it from there, if you care to retract your " I don't think you know what you are talking about....." statement'</em></p>

 

<p><em>I don't care to.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't think so.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[felixg]

<p>Bill P to Martin S:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>“</strong> To begin with, what's your training? My bio states mine, so believe me, I DO know what I'm talking about<strong>”</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm curious ... what do you see as the necessary connection between training in a creative field and knowing what one is talking about?<br /> No training which I have received (nor, for that matter, training which I have delivered) imparts any authority.<br /> Training encourages the development of skills. Education (a very different thing) encourages development of affect. The two together encourage developmnt of knowledge. But none of them <em>guarantee</em> development of anything − far less the development of authority. Authority (in any area) is earned by what one does with the opportunities afforded, not by those opportunities in and of themselves − and is only given by others, not by oneself.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"I've already started a set of small visual projects triggered by Arthur's questions, so this thread has been pure pay dirt for me."</p>

<p>I am delighted to hear that, Felix. And I share your interest in pursuing the potential of these image elements and their interaction. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>@ Felix Grant</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Julie: the application of critical geographic methods to art completes a circuit whose brokenness I've long felt. Thank you for the reference.<br />I've already started a set of small visual projects triggered by Arthur's questions, so this thread has been pure pay dirt for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Awesome! <em>Totally </em>awesome!</p>

<p>I am enjoying thinking about the examples, both visual and descriptive that are being posted. Very stimulating. Thanks to Arthur for being a good shepherd.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred touched on the role of symmetry and framing in conception. Going in.</p>

<p>How about the role of symmetry and framing in <em>re</em>ception that is not strictly due to (material) composition. Going out.</p>

<p>Thinking about this because I just ran across this in a book I'm reading:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>... there are many such objects and things that "look back" and break the frame -- and continuity -- of the characters' (and our) quotidian and mastering vision, their increased stature and imperiousness opening our own eys to the broadened scope of existence.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Similar to my earlier suggestion about the permeability of the frame, but this quote points to the psychological rather than the material continuity of the world that is outside the frame of the photograph -- as part of or affecting the balance of an image's content. This seems pretty obvious but I'm not sure it's been considered reference the mechanics of composition.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Julie, notwithstanding the quote, which I feel may require a more complete reference to what the author was thinking in order to savour it fully, your suggestion that the frame is not just a physical one is important. It is one reason I think the square frame is appropriate in some instances, as it has a less defined capacity than the rectangular frame to influence the viewer. However, more important I think is the fact that whatever the frame chosen by the photographer or artist, it can easily be overridden by the mental perception (of the image) of the viewer and the thought voyage of the viewer, which can go way beyond any geometrical constraints.</p>

<p>What makes an image particularly adept at inciting the viewer to go (to think) beyond its geometrical limits? Is that the physical construction of the image composition, the emotional impact of the image, its intellectual message, its mystery, or....? Or, has the artist really anything to do with it?</p>

<p>The artist and the viewer may be two completely different thinking individuals, connected only by the perceived message (nay, the perceived meaning) of the image.</p>

<p>A subject, no doubt, for this and other posts. Thanks for raising what was latent in the minds of a number of us, I'm sure.</p>

<p> </p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1706103"><em>Felix Grant</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 30, 2010; 01:53 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Bill P to Martin S:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>“</strong> To begin with, what's your training? My bio states mine, so believe me, I DO know what I'm talking about<strong>”</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I'm curious ... what do you see as the necessary connection between training in a creative field and knowing what one is talking about?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Felix, I'm a little short on time, though I always look forward to your questions.<br>

Let's cut to the chase.<br>

Next time you go to the doctor for that physical, ask him if he's self taught.<br>

Or, better yet, tell him that you don't think he knows what he's talking about.<br>

Bottom line ---<br>

Those of us that put in the thousands of hours of schooling, did the work, passed the tests, graduated, have earned the right to a bit more criedibility that those people who were "winging it" in the bistro quoting phrases from their latest coffee table book on the "Pre Raphaelites".<br>

Those who did not put in the time have no idea how intense the subject is.</p>

<p>That's the connection.</p>

<p>Bill P. </p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092"><em>Arthur Plumpton</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 31, 2010; 08:23 a.m.</em><br>

<em>What makes an image particularly adept at inciting the viewer to go (to think) beyond its geometrical limits? Is that the physical construction of the image composition, the emotional impact of the image, its intellectual message, its mystery, or....? Or, has the artist really anything to do with it?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, the artist has everything to do with it!<br>

I want you to feel what I was feeling at the time. My photos are simply a window into my process, and I want you to take the trip with me. That's why I shoot unretouched, I want you to experience the truth I was experiencing at that exact moment, as clearly as possible.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"Those of us that put in the thousands of hours of schooling, did the work, passed the tests, graduated, have earned the right to a bit more criedibility that those people who were 'winging it' in the bistro quoting phrases from their latest coffee table book on the 'Pre Raphaelites'." <strong>--William</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither are necessarily credible to me. People who have learned to think for themselves and internalize what they've learned in hours of schooling, self study, or practice are people I want to listen to. (Thankfully, artists are not pilots and I've never seen a painting I thought my life depended on. Maybe once or twice it felt like it!) People who have <em>ideas</em> are people I want to listen to. Both groups you mention simply wing it, either resting on quotes from coffee table books or quotes from teachers or famous artists or mainstream statistics. When I sense someone knows what they're talking about it's because they <em>show</em> me that they know what they are talking about, by being able to talk about it, engage in a discussion about it. Not because they can list their credentials, genetics, or books they have on their coffee table. Not when they participate in a discussion by only simply stating their opinions without backing them up with the personal observations and hands-on experience that led them to make those opinions their own rather than simply recite them. Valuable to me also are those that want to learn as well as to teach others. People who know what they're talking about also know what they <em>don't</em> know. People who know are usually those who want to know more. They often make exploratory statements and wonder about new ideas.</p>